Why God cannot be proven?

[FireBorn]

Hmmm....

First of all there is objective knowledge

I didn't deny that. I was talking about metaphysical experiences, not math proofs.

second people should not be content with opinion only

I never said I was. I said my direct experiences are valid regardless of objective consensus. That’s not “opinion” that’s gnosis.

The rest of your post is projection that doesn't really say anything. Philosophical abstraction. I'm cool with you disagreeing with me, but intimating things I did not say? Yeah, not gonna fly dude.

 

[Trialectical_Materialist]

Hmmm....

I didn't deny that. I was talking about metaphysical experiences, not math proofs.

I never said I was. I said my direct experiences are valid regardless of objective consensus. That’s not “opinion” that’s gnosis.

The rest of your post is projection that doesn't really say anything. Philosophical abstraction. I'm cool with you disagreeing with me, but intimating things I did not say? Yeah, not gonna fly dude.

You're denying a great wealth of traditions if you think the immutable principles of mathematics and the like have nothing to do with the divine intellect.

Direct experience are not valid regardless of objective truths. Do you deny the fallibilty of human faculties?

"Projection"

You said youre experiences cannot be said to true or false and that is okay. Truth is possession of being, opinion the variable in between being and not being. Does that not align exactly with where you said your practice was?

"Not gonna fly dude"

What the flippity flop bro

 

[FireBorn]

You’re trying to assert philosophical hierarchy in a thread where I’ve explicitly stated I’m not playing by those rules. That’s your first misstep.

I never said experience was infallible. I said it was valid. Big difference. One is a claim to perfect knowledge. The other is a refusal to outsource meaning to consensus.

And your analogy about AI girlfriends is cute, but it’s not even in the same ontological category. You’re treating gnosis, the fruit of direct, initiated contact with spirits like it’s just another opinion on a subreddit. It’s not.

Truth, as “possession of being,” sure, that’s Aristotle. But I’m not confusing opinion with gnosis. I’m saying that my experiences with spirit, however ineffable, realign my being. That’s not opinion. That’s ontological transformation. If you want to call that “subjective,” fine. But don’t mistake it for “lesser.” That’s your bias, not a metaphysical truth.

You're welcome to stay in the arena of abstraction. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here because I've stood in front of spirits older than empires and walked away changed. Your approval of that doesn’t factor.

 

[Trialectical_Materialist]

You’re trying to assert philosophical hierarchy in a thread where I’ve explicitly stated I’m not playing by those rules. That’s your first misstep.

I never said experience was infallible. I said it was valid. Big difference. One is a claim to perfect knowledge. The other is a refusal to outsource meaning to consensus.

And your analogy about AI girlfriends is cute, but it’s not even in the same ontological category. You’re treating gnosis, the fruit of direct, initiated contact with spirits like it’s just another opinion on a subreddit. It’s not.

Truth, as “possession of being,” sure, that’s Aristotle. But I’m not confusing opinion with gnosis. I’m saying that my experiences with spirit, however ineffable, realign my being. That’s not opinion. That’s ontological transformation. If you want to call that “subjective,” fine. But don’t mistake it for “lesser.” That’s your bias, not a metaphysical truth.

You're welcome to stay in the arena of abstraction. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here because I've stood in front of spirits older than empires and walked away changed. Your approval of that doesn’t factor.

Assertion of philosophical hierarchy? What exactly do you mean by that?

I didnt say you said experience was infallible, you said it was valid, and I am saying its not always valid, especially not without the aid of reasoning and previously admitted objective truths.

"Refusal to outsource meaning to concesus"

If I understand you correctly, you are saying an individual can find "meaning" in experiences regardless of their objectivity. Which is somewhat true. Just as a man may look at a circle with a line next to it and see the letter α, or a line and connect it to 1. Of course he is still identifying an intelligible object.


Now you are peculiarly denying the ability for experience to lead to objective truths while affirming the validity of experience as a mthod of what exactly?. I am fighting a two headed idiot.

You say gnosis, but i have to disagree when you affirm your own stance to be opinion


"Thats aristotle"

Erm ackthually plato said it first in book v of the republic

You admitted your experiences as being not true nor false, what justifes them as gnosis?


Just because you cannot put a name to something doesn't mean it is subjective. The greatest beings are those that cannot be named and require an experience to possess.

Never did I say I didnt approve of your practice, in fact id argue that if you achieved what you claim, I am being more respectful to it than you are, as i say that you have achieved a greater truth and there is nothing subjective about what you have.

 

[FireBorn]

Let’s be clear: you’re not debating, you’re playing games. You’ve taken what I said and twisted it into something I never claimed. That’s not a misunderstanding. That’s manipulation. You're also asking questions so you can strawman the answers. That's a tactic, and it’s cheap. I see you.

I said my experiences aren’t objectively provable. That doesn’t mean they’re meaningless. That doesn’t mean they’re just “opinions.” You’re smart enough to know the difference, which tells me this isn’t about honest inquiry - this is about control and optics.

You’re trying to wedge my gnosis into your little philosophical framework and then act like I’m the one being unclear. But what I’m talking about doesn’t fit into your boxes. This isn’t an argument, it’s transformation. I’m not here trying to win a debate. I’m telling you what burned me into something new.

Also, calling me a “two-headed idiot” doesn’t make your argument stronger. It just shows your mask slipped.

And this thing where you claim you “respect my experience more than I do”? That’s not respect. That’s condescension dressed up as flattery. You don’t get to misrepresent me and then pretend it’s a compliment.

If you want to play Reddit-tier mental gymnastics, you’re in the wrong place. I’m not your target audience. I’m not some kid on a philosophy forum trying to sound deep. I’ve stood in front of spirits older than your frameworks and came back changed.

That doesn't need your approval to be real.

 

[Trialectical_Materialist]

Let’s be clear: you’re not debating, you’re playing games. You’ve taken what I said and twisted it into something I never claimed. That’s not a misunderstanding. That’s manipulation. You're also asking questions so you can strawman the answers. That's a tactic, and it’s cheap. I see you.

I said my experiences aren’t objectively provable. That doesn’t mean they’re meaningless. That doesn’t mean they’re just “opinions.” You’re smart enough to know the difference, which tells me this isn’t about honest inquiry - this is about control and optics.

You’re trying to wedge my gnosis into your little philosophical framework and then act like I’m the one being unclear. But what I’m talking about doesn’t fit into your boxes. This isn’t an argument, it’s transformation. I’m not here trying to win a debate. I’m telling you what burned me into something new.

Also, calling me a “two-headed idiot” doesn’t make your argument stronger. It just shows your mask slipped.

And this thing where you claim you “respect my experience more than I do”? That’s not respect. That’s condescension dressed up as flattery. You don’t get to misrepresent me and then pretend it’s a compliment.

If you want to play Reddit-tier mental gymnastics, you’re in the wrong place. I’m not your target audience. I’m not some kid on a philosophy forum trying to sound deep. I’ve stood in front of spirits older than your frameworks and came back changed.

That doesn't need your approval to be real.

The only person you can ever convince in an argument is yourself.

Man is calling me reddit after saying "ive stood in front of spirits older than empires!"

"Ive been burned! Transformed!"

Bro shut up with that. If you cant prove it why say it? You admitted so much.

You only spoke of learning through experience, and even said that it didnt matter whether what you experienced was proven true or not. I labeled your experience opinion because of this.

You said direct experiences trump the objective consensus. I wasnt arguing in favor of the consensus, and the consensus these days is pretty much mostly determined by empiricism anyway, so i dont even know what you are talking about there.

On the subject matter, there isnt an objective consensus to god to even compare your direct experience to it.

On other subjects thats stupid and dangerous for very very obvious reasons. Experiences may be objective, but the objects we see in them are not. When you say, my experience is valid, what you really mean to say is that your interpretation of your experience is valid.

How do you judge experiences without reason or comparison to previously admitted objective truths? Your feelings?
If so, I am almost entirely certain that you are a man who chases a euphoric sensation, and you will chase it off a cliff.

Go and worship what you can or cannot say exists with the, maybe or maybe not, divine if that is a thing, ritual, that may or may not work.

 

[FireBorn]

Read the room. Read the forum rules. Have a good one.

 

[lumineth Realm Lord]

This is the question I came across. I have my own answers to that question, but I want to here from you all. What do you think?

Why God cannot be proven?

Are we talking about the Christian god, or gods in general?

 

[Konsciencia]

Are we talking about the Christian god, or gods in general?

No, Not the Christian God, but The Source of everything.

 

[lumineth Realm Lord]

Well, because it's a transcendent force that simply doesn't exist on our level of existence. Ever heard of deism?

 

[Konsciencia]

Well, because it's a transcendent force that simply doesn't exist on our level of existence. Ever heard of deism?

No, I haven't. Is it based on Deities?

 

[Viktor]

Why God cannot be proven?

If you're referring to Judeo-Christian God, then the answer is simple, that God does not want to be seen.

If you're referring to philosophical God, that's a bit tougher question, quick and dirty answer would be that it was created by philosophers so they can dismiss it as well as concept and not actually existent.

 

[lumineth Realm Lord]

No, I haven't. Is it based on Deities?

Deism is the idea that a creator made the universe, but doesn't actually sustain it. It was very popular among the founding fathers.

 

[HoldAll]

I recently read in a book on classic Jewish kabbalah (it may have been by Moshe Idel) that the old rabbis were all agreed that god was so ineffable and infinite that he's even beyond existence and non-existence, which surprised me no end because after all the definite existence of god is the basic premise of all monotheism. I take this statement to mean that this is simply one of the millions of aspect of god we puny humans are just too dumb to comprehend because we will stubbornly insist on possessing certain knowledge that god either exists (and only then we'll feel justified in believing in him) or that he doesn't (in which case we won't) which is simply a sign of our parochial understanding of the divine. Even the fact that I use the masculine gender when writing about god here is proof of my own simple-mindedness - is god a he, a she, or an it? Are we able to conceive of a fourth, tenth or a thousandth gender (or billions of them simultaneously!) as an alternative to the ridiculously limed choice of masculine, feminine, or neutral? We aren't, so we'd better stop pondering the imponderable, as much as that may hurt our intellectual pride.

 

[Konsciencia]

Deism is the idea that a creator made the universe, but doesn't actually sustain it. It was very popular among the founding fathers.

Wow!!! Awesome!!! But here's a question though. Do you ever wondered if you are God yourself?

Post automatically merged: Aug 25, 2025

I recently read in a book on classic Jewish kabbalah (it may have been by Moshe Idel) that the old rabbis were all agreed that god was so ineffable and infinite that he's even beyond existence and non-existence, which surprised me no end because after all the definite existence of god is the basic premise of all monotheism. I take this statement to mean that this is simply one of the millions of aspect of god we puny humans are just too dumb to comprehend because we will stubbornly insist on possessing certain knowledge that god either exists (and only then we'll feel justified in believing in him) or that he doesn't (in which case we won't) which is simply a sign of our parochial understanding of the divine. Even the fact that I use the masculine gender when writing about god here is proof of my own simple-mindedness - is god a he, a she, or an it? Are we able to conceive of a fourth, tenth or a thousandth gender (or billions of them simultaneously!) as an alternative to the ridiculously limed choice of masculine, feminine, or neutral? We aren't, so we'd better stop pondering the imponderable, as much as that may hurt our intellectual pride.

Understand HoldAll. This God is just to hard to comprehend.

 

[Phoenix62]

I think that the existence of God, the source of everything, is not proovable, even for people aware of their mediumnic abilities, because it's not something that can be percieve separately from what is. But you can have the personnal proof of the existence of being that are not here physically and are called deities for some, like Isis, Enki, Thot ... you can talk with them psychically, feel their energy ...

 

[aviaf]

This is the question I came across. I have my own answers to that question, but I want to here from you all. What do you think?

Why God cannot be proven?

For me, the reason God (or the gods) cannot be “proven” is because divinity was never meant to be an equation. It’s not an object in a lab, but a current of experience. Proof is a human construct, while the gods are living symbols—forces we encounter, shape, and are shaped by.

From my perspective, the gods are the same across cultures, just seen through different mythic lenses. Odin, Thor, Frigg, Tyr—they echo as Zeus, Hermes, Apollo, Hera, and countless others. The names and stories differ, but the powers are the same primal energies: wisdom, war, love, fate, death, inspiration.

This is exactly where monotheism poisoned the well. By collapsing countless divine forces into a single jealous god, it amputated the human spirit from its natural relationship to plurality. It demanded obedience to one mask and declared all others false. What was once a living dialogue with the sacred became a courtroom where doubt was heresy.

And now? Look around. Our society is choking on an existential crisis because monotheism stripped us of living myth. People are left with a brutal binary: blind belief in one God or absolute nihilism. No middle ground. No flexibility. No space for mystery. The mythic imagination was crucified, and what replaced it was hollow.

This is why God cannot be proven. Because “God” as imagined by monotheism is a cage—an artificial monolith built to control. The real gods, the real forces, slip through those bars. They show up in dreams, art, chaos, tragedy, and ecstasy—not in catechisms or proofs.

Monotheism promised certainty and delivered emptiness. The proof is in the crisis all around us.

So what now? The call is clear: revive the mythic imagination. Restore the gods to plurality. Invoke them, play with them, embody them. Chaos is not a threat—it is the fertile ground of creation. We don’t need “proof” of God. We need to remember that the gods live in us, through us, and around us, wearing whatever masks we give them.

The cure for this crisis isn’t another cage—it’s the freedom to let divinity take a thousand forms again.