s3ood

I’ve been a long time reader, but never really had the chance to contribute, or maybe ask a question or two in the forum. I guess today is as good as any. I am 23 years old, and like many 23 year olds, I am only beginning to understand very few of the things that I did not for a while now. One of those things is of course the existence of God, which brings me to my topic of discussion.
I was born and raised a Muslim, which isn’t really relevant to what I am going to ask but I just thought I’d mention that I am still a “believer”. What I want to talk about is regarding my newest chapter of “my” book of revelations. Now I am sure to some of you this is not new information, others might of considered it but never really put any emphasis or extra thought to it, but right now it’s all I can think of.

I can sum up my question, my thesis and my answer all in one sentence, which is as follows: Can you prove or disapprove the existence of God?

Can you? I am afraid that I have reached the conclusion that you cannot. And here’s why, let’s take one of the “Strongest” arguments that many theologians, regardless of religion, have came up with. There are of course many, but for the purpose of my point let’s take the “look into the miracles of nature” argument. While that argument does stand as a clear message of just how marvelous the world around is, it does not prove that there is a God, it just proves that the sun can rise up in the morning and dawn in the evening in perfect timing every day of the year, that a women can give birth and her body can adapt to very complicated changes to insure the best environment for child birth…etc etc etc. These examples are indeed miracles of nature, but are not concrete evidence of the existence of God. Just like that argument can be used to prove the existence of God it can also be used to disapprove his existence, as a theoretical approach. However, it is not concrete.
Which brings me to the name of my topic, then if this is fact, and the argument can go both ways, then how is religion ingenious here exactly and how is it related to why and how God exists?

But before I can answer that question, let me just add, one of the many arguments atheists use to disapprove the existence of God. If God does exist? then how come he doesn't want us to know?

Let me try to answer those questions with an example. Let’s again imagine for the purpose of my point that God created some sort of sign on earth. Lets also just say that this sign was “indisputable” assuming that God has the infinite powers and resources, then this sign or creation would basically be a piece of cake. The purpose of the sign would be the following “I am your God, I exist, this my indisputable sign of my existence, worship me because that is why I created you” Again this sign or creation would not be some sort of book or human or whatever it would be an everlasting immortal sign that cannot be changed or disputed.

What would happen? Well many things I am sure, but the majority of the people would be believers, no doubt there will be nay-sayers, but that’s not the point I want to discuss. My point would be had this sign existed, and then it would defy the whole rules of faith and final judgment. Faith is based on believing and God states that he wants us to believe in him blindly and nothing else. So having the sign would make us all believers while the rest of us would clearly just be people trying to lie to themselves or are mentally challenged, since the sign is clear and indisputable in this hypothetical situation. With the point being, nobody would be special we would all believe in God, but in various degrees.

So here’s the real deal. While the validity of the reasoning I just gave of why God doesn't want us to know he exist, in an obvious way. Is obviously a disputed argument, again this is just what some religions argue. But regardless of that even if that wasn't the case and God has another reason why he does not want us to know he exists in an obvious way beside fate, then what is it?

I know my argument is not exactly concrete myself, I clearly need more examples and perhaps more points of reasoning to reach a solid and plausible conclusion, that is where you guys and gals come in. Which is what I hope to discuss, what do you think?

I hope I made some sense, I tend to wander off sometimes, and basically what I am trying to say is the absence of truth is not the truth of absence that is where my dilemma stands.