Is it really so incredible that we don't have conclusive proof for God?

He was sure far from absent in biblical times, what happened?

If you can't see him and he does nothing we can measure or observe, how do you know it's him and not elves?

There is absolutely no proof that God exists...therefore God exists?

Sorry -- "A" cannot equal "Not A."

So your argument is that the utter lack of evidence of god is evidence of god?

*facepalm*

It's no more incredible that we don't have conclusive proof of pixies or Leprechauns.
They, like god, are all imaginary.
So it's not incredible at all.
What IS incredible is that there are people still gullible enough to think that the universe was created by some imaginary sky-pixie. Now THAT, shows staggering amounts of willful ignorance...

"There are millions of people who have been contacted by or had encounters with Beings from other worlds. I am one of them. "
Evidence or it's all BS there buddy...

You're absolutely right. In fact the same logic could be applied to fairies, goblins, the sandman, Santa Claus, genies, and the Easter bunny

What "conclusive"? I'd settle for "any". We have _zero_

You can't use an argument saying God cannot be proven to exist to prove he exists. If God was fully and wholly transcendent, then, would we have any knowledge of him whatsoever? Doesn't it stand to reason that the idea of this transcendential god would be fully unknown, and anything you've heard regarding the matter would be fully of man, anyway?

He's so hard to understand that he's invisible? You're really grasping for your imaginary friend..

Or he might just be an imaginary concept... as all the mountains of evidence for a natural non-thinking universe suggests.

This is a very good reason not to believe in god. Excuses for lack of proof are classic attributes of false claims.

A: "There is an elf on the table."
B: "I don't see him"
A: "He's invisible."
B: "Hmm. I can't feel him."
A: "That's right, he's not physical."
B: "Ahh, is there any way I can detect him?"
A: "No."
B: "So how is the existence of a transcedent invisible elf different from no elf at all?"

Rational people reject claims carefully constructed to be unprovable and even untestable.

People who need proof, will never find it, and those who insist on sharing their proof have yet to find it.

"Is it really so incredible that we don't have conclusive proof for God?"
Naahhh... that's reality.
~

Just got out of philosophy 101? Not at all. The theists mantain the position that their deity(s) interact and perform feats of "magic" which can be anything from raising the dead to creation of the universe. Now--these events are dissectable--interaction even from a transcendent deity requires a connect with the mortal realm. Mechanistically how do these events occur--can we find traces of the "magicons" used to interact with the mortal realm? We know, beyond any doubt, that entropy can't be beaten. When you have someone die for example--the entropy of the brain--on a molecular level increases dramatically. Thermodynamics tells us--there is no perpetual motion machine possible---the proof is convincing and mathematically. Therefore the interaction must be via some unknown particles (i've named them magicons). The point being--one can build a whole reality around this point of using magicons. If you look at this truly in a rational sense--what you describe is not far removed from russells teapot. I don't need to do a task that can't be done in a finite lifetime (search for the teapot)--physics and the fact that no one has launched teapots into space tells me that there is no teapot in orbit between mars and jupiter. Likewise--you have a very convienent mechanism in what you've designed in your statement--to avoid having to analyze it. That in it's many forms is the religions greatest con job ((you can't understand god, the concept is beyond our understanding--it's all variations of the same gibberish). The typical response is whats the difference between a non-0interactive truly transcendent god ====and no god at all).

I would settle for inconclusive proof for god, but there's none of that, either. And no, your logic doesn't follow. Even if a being is transcendent, that does not imply that all or a part of their existence couldn't be within human conceptuality. They are not necessarily exclusive.

Of course there is proof; but Metaphysics is not being taught in the current world-forum.

There are millions of people who have been contacted by or had encounters with Beings from other worlds. I am one of them.

They are not to be worshiped, they teach that there is a Prime Force and that nothing happens by chance.

Why can't you people just get it through your heads that God does not leave behind evidence of his existence because he wants you to freely choose to believe in him?

Conclusive proof is all around you. It's called creation.
Romans 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,
who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God
has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in
their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

the respond is "no longer yet". as quickly as upon a time, an gentleman named Galileo took a singular toy that made use of things of glass and regarded on the evening sky with it. He became astonished to locate some thing that no person had ever seen earlier: rings around Saturn, dark spots on the solar, craters on the moon, stages of Venus, moons around Jupiter and countless faint stars that could no longer be seen with the bare eye. Up till that 2nd, there were no data of the existence of any of those issues. Did that propose that they did no longer exist before and that they by surprise popped into existence? No. Likewise, God's existence can't be shown in the present day. there's a clarification for this. God has provided us salvation by grace, and that demands that we settle for and believe him on faith. faith is jointly unique of information. they are in a position to no longer coexist. a guy who has faith desires no data and a guy who demands data has no faith. So by way of fact God asks us to settle for Him on faith, He has assured that in the present day there can no longer in all probability be data. To have data now could be counter to His objective. in spite of the indisputable fact that, God has promised data. contained in the Bible an afternoon is foretold whilst all will come earlier God and there will be little doubt or question. The Bible tells us that each and each knee shall bow and each tongue will confess. bear in recommendations what i discussed approximately Galileo and the flaws he observed? basically by way of fact God has no longer been shown in the present day, does no longer propose God would not exist. And if God exists, if His rules are real, can we no longer be held in charge to Him for our habit? we've been warned...our presence in this communicate board testifies to that. ultimately I leave you with this factor: each and all of the guidelines of nature governeing the universe did no longer exist till the universe got here into being. So the guidelines of entropy, reason and effect, good judgment etc. propose no longer something for the reason that those rules did no longer exist till after the creation. basically before the creation of the universe, who can say what rules (if any) did exist? If God created the universe then He could predate the universe and exist exterior of the universe. How then we could prepare rules of excellent judgment to a minimum of a few thing that may no longer in threat of those rules?

It may be impossible to prove that god exists, in the sense that we cannot tell the difference between something sufficiently god like, and god. This is a problem for the theist not the atheist. There is no evidence that anything that could be god exists. IE there is no super god like alien that appears to exist outside space and time with magical powers that you can communicate telepathically with that will torture you for all eternity if you dont tell it how awesome it is all the time. If there was, as a theist believes, then they have to figure out whether this 'real' being they are talking to is actually god, a sufficiently advanced alien they are telepathically 'talking' to, or their imagination.
Yes god would probably be indestinguishable from a super advanced 'magic' alien. But there is no evidence of either. If you believe you have a relationship with god, how do you know?

If that's the case, what's the difference between "transcendent" and "non existent"? If there's a difference that can be measured, then we can verify the existence of something that is transcendent. If there is no measurable difference, then by what right can anyone claim god is transcendent rather than non existent? If you can't even verify that a god exists, then what right does anyone have to tell me what god does or does not think/feel/want?

I don't require conclusive proof in order to believe something. I merely require convincing evidence. Claiming that god exists but cannot be detected simply leads me to the obvious question: how can you possibly know?

The Holy Spirit convicts of sin and proves the scriptures. God proves Himself.

God said, "do not eat that or you will die". We die because we are separated from God by sin. God became a man and died in our place. With our sins forgiven, God can be reunited with us.