Why does God not answer 100% of prayers?

False. That’s like saying there is not word such as a word. By definition of saying it you negate yourself- which isn’t the same as proving the opposite- it’s just showing you you’re wrong.

also you can’t have 0% in probability, there is always an infinitesimal amount, once you perceive at category. Something wrong vacillating with probability theory.

for example a coin flip is not 50/50 they tell you this for simple calculations and people. It’s really 49.9999999 to infinity for heads and the same for tails and then since time is part of the function the “space between” is actually .00000000000001 to infinty likely. It could land on the side and then mathematically if you analyze the side and the space between that and the head or tails side - it goes in infinity and adds more infinitesimal probabilities- which add up.

the point is - you’re wrong in many ways. Anyone who says they are atheist or agnostic just don’t understand logic or linguists- you can’t disprove God because it’s the thing that forms the words and logic lol.
a knife can’t cut itself. You can use language to disprove the thing that creates it. Idiot

Hold on I need to deal with this 5th grader who just starting reading basic logic.

wrong! By definition you are wrong by your own logic! You can say God is beyond understanding and then create a proof using that concept hahahahahahah

Language is self referencing so you’re wrong by definition.

i can still be right because I redefine “God” there are really 2. The one that rules the universe and is personal like Zeus. That’s is “knowable” the other (as you tried to explain) is “unknownable, beyond words etc” I call that the “thing behind the word God” so yes you are right there is a thing by definition of logic that can’t be named but you don’t need words to show it- you can show it geometrically- it’s the space between the things you quantify.

you’re smart but focus too much on words and logic- you realize there are other ways.

also- you can’t “prove anything you know” so I’m not saying you can prove “the thing behind the word God” I’m saying you just know it

You also can’t prove the normal “God” because it’s something you “know”. It’s not hard to understand I’m sure Hegel said something like this

a proof by definition is needed for things you can’t know. Everyone who has arms know they have arms- but you sent prove it.

sotp trying to win here if you arnt a genius and don’t understand logic. Haha I laughed so hard at your illogical loop.

“God is knowable because it’s infintie” well buddy then why the f are you trying to say anything about it. Hahahahah

i know God, I don’t need to prove. And the “thing behind the word God” that is not something we talk about. That’s basically just you. “You” can prove yourself- you are the thing behind the word God. You see ;)

ok no go back to your wife who thinks your cyclical self defeating logic (which I would hear in like the 8th grade) is smart haha. You’re a joke

next? Anyone else think about God? It’s my whole life so you can all give up now

Yeah actually “God” is all dependent on definition. So how do you know your word god and mine are even close at all.

soekw for yourself- but my word God is so far better and greater than yours- it is knowable by definition. My God formed a language I have that allows to know it

see- if you just write anything and make your own definitions you are right. So stop saying “God is unknownable” not mine.

if God is “unknownable” the the word or thought is mute- so by definition God must be knowable.

Ugh you guys bore me. Anyone with a 200 IQ? I’m waiting- or do I just get more 120 IQs who think spelling matter before logic haha

You are being ridiculous with this example.

But in answer to your question: you explain to him why it is not possible. You don't simply ignore all his pleadings and cryings and beggins as if you are either deaf, or don't care or don't exist.

Ah OK. I don't follow pop music so I didn't understand the reference.

Well, sadly you have added to the number of the stupid. The god that is being referenced by most is the Judeo/Christian god. According to the scriptures of both, the being God, is supposed to have a personal relationship. As a matter of fact, he is supposed to be called the Father. " Our Father who art in Heaven..."

Your screen name is quite apt based upon your response.

What does any of that have to do with the way an all powerful, all knowing, all benevolent deity treats his children? You are reducing such a being to standards below the standards of humans. Now that is weird.

Even weirder that you don't even recognize the obviousness of the crux of your post.

I disagree- the God being referenced here is more of a general God. Prove its about 'christian god'

Also even if you want to say its a "Christian God" i would ask to define that - as most christians dont even agree on the same thing (personal god), then i would go from there and destroy your egotistical idea of certainty here. lol you are so basic. hmmmmmmm so you are wrong about this board, as most here cant even define what they believe anyways.....so wrong again.

Also you are missing my genius - my philosophy is a balanced between: uncertainty, logic, fantasy, ontology, linguistics, and topology. the point is - its all about definition in one sense, so I would argue God can be "personal" it just comes with conditions. One condition that could be possible and everything works - is their is a condition with every attribute of God.

So my view -God is personal and I know this - but also by definition this can't be shared with others you see. God is personal and known to each individual -and then each individual has teh choice to share it or pretend it doesnt exist. So its like a multi-faceted langugae game what is going on - and then if you see the genius and even if you agree- you might ask "why post on this board if you are One with God and know God and are a genius?" and well there is no cause, its just what is happening and I like to do - also why if one knwos God does one not share it. Again if you dont know God, then stop professing to understand or project your logic or claims on people like me who truly know God. I am here because God wants me to talk about it, but I still get to do it however I like. When you find God, you are eternally with God and life is just a walk with ONLY God. If you are a man, without God - then you are with many.

The many are alone.

The alone, are singular. God is always alone and you walk with him.

;) God now tells me I must go. I am causing too much a stir here.

*Also all these Christian Atheists who never think much about God or Gaze, need to stop acting like you are intellectual, some of us actually think about these concepts deeply throughout our whole life. And if you never have gone to church and thunk youre an atheist -stop talking, you have no foundation.

The reason i am the greatest believer now, is I used to be the greatest atheist - i would make Hitchens and Dawkins look religious, and that was as a 11 year old kid. I remember reading them both in middle school and thinking they were bold but still held back by unproductive ideologies

Perhaps what you call god is in your mind. Did it occur to you that when something good happens , its god's will, yet when something bad happens: "oh its man's free will" Pretty convenient.

There is noise in every perfect system. What can I say. I'm a genius of genius - obviously between the profound truths I share I also spew terrible things that are illogical. I'm also a poet. The truth is not held in the "truth category" alone. Obviously. Godels incompleteness theorum. Georgs Infinite Set theory. Or do you not understand math or logic?

I'm basically Schizophrenic - but the genius kind. My issue is being so logical, I found logic is just a part of fantasy, so these words you see - they are full of truth, but also untruth, in saying this I still win here.

You are intellectually an ant compared to me is the point. Like i know I spew terrible stuff here, but also there is much truth. Reality is full of turht and untruth - why should my teaching be any different.

Reality is non-sequiter so i am as well. Also the only way to truly support your philosophy is embody it. So I beleive part of reality is poetry and absurdity and also error - so I fill that into my words you see. I'm genius. If you actually ask i make sense, but if you go too far into my sense you will see its based off nonsense.....hmmm he actually is making sense ;)

goodluck

Actually no - when something really bad happens I suspect its God and im being punished. How basic are you. Have you not realized like 30% of the population is sadomasochistic - so they probably like when God hurts them.

And no for myself - I think God does both the good and bad to you. And I think you enjoy it ;)

Sadomasochism isn't doing X and saying I love X because its painful. It's saying I hate X its ffffing painful, and doing it because you love it, but dont tell anyone. The schism between the mind and body manifest

You cant have an unknowable God!!! If its unknowable the claim refutes it!! literally obviious to me and every other imp here. So since you all are lost here i chatgpt to explain a very basic idea:

1. Defining "Unknowable" God
Unknowable God: The idea of an unknowable God typically refers to a God who is beyond human comprehension, inaccessible to human understanding, and cannot be fully known or understood by finite beings.
Knowability: For something to be "knowable" means that we can, at least to some degree, understand it, describe it, or make claims about its nature or existence.
2. The Contradiction in Making Claims About an Unknowable God
The statement claims that the very notion of an unknowable God is self-refuting. The reasoning behind this logic can be unpacked as follows:
Premise 1: To assert that something (in this case, God) is unknowable, you are already making a claim about it. Specifically, you are claiming that God is unknowable.
Premise 2: To make a claim about something requires that you know or understand at least something about the subject. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to make any statements about it.
Contradiction: If you claim that God is unknowable, but making that claim requires knowing something about God (namely, that God is unknowable), you have contradicted yourself. You cannot both know that God is unknowable and maintain that God is unknowable at the same time.By stating that God is unknowable, you are implicitly stating that you have some knowledge about God’s nature—specifically, the knowledge that God is unknowable.
Therefore, the statement seems to refute itself because if God is truly unknowable, you should not be able to make any claims about God at all, including the claim that God is unknowable.
3. The Logic of the Paradox
The core of the argument is a paradox:
Unknowability implies that nothing can be said or known about the thing that is unknowable.
Making a claim about something unknowable (such as God) suggests that you know something about it (in this case, that it’s unknowable).
This leads to a self-contradiction: You cannot claim that something is unknowable while simultaneously making that claim, because the act of making a claim implies some knowledge or understanding of the subject.
4. Relation to Negative Theology
This idea connects to the tradition of negative theology (or apophatic theology), where theologians claim that God can only be described in terms of what God is not, rather than what God is. For example, God is not finite, not temporal, not limited, etc. The idea is that God is so far beyond human comprehension that positive claims about God’s nature are inadequate.
However, even in negative theology, there’s still the assumption that we can know something about God—that God is, for instance, incomprehensible or beyond language. Thus, this tradition walks a fine line between recognizing the limits of human understanding and acknowledging that we can still claim something about God's unknowability.
5. Exploring the Refutation
The statement "You can’t have an unknowable God" is arguing that a truly unknowable God would be so far beyond our understanding that even making the claim "God is unknowable" would be impossible. If God is truly unknowable, we shouldn’t be able to make any statements about God at all—because the moment we say "God is unknowable," we’re claiming to know something about God, which contradicts the very idea of unknowability.
This logic works as follows:
Step 1: To claim God is unknowable, I must have some knowledge of God (that God is unknowable).
Step 2: Having knowledge of God contradicts the assertion that God is unknowable.
Conclusion: The claim refutes itself because claiming unknowability is itself a form of knowledge about God.
6. Critiques and Alternative Interpretations
However, some might argue that this critique oversimplifies the concept of unknowability:
Partial Knowability: One might argue that God can be unknowable in essence or totality, but aspects of God may still be knowable. For instance, we might be able to claim that God exists or that God is unknowable in certain respects, while still holding that God’s full nature is beyond human comprehension.
Mystical Approaches: In some mystical traditions, the concept of unknowability is not meant to be understood in a purely logical sense. Mystical experiences of God may transcend rational knowledge, implying that while God cannot be "known" in a traditional, intellectual sense, God can be "experienced" or encountered in ways that defy logic. Therefore, the unknowability of God might reflect the limitations of human language and thought, not a contradiction in the nature of God itself.
Conclusion: Self-Refuting or Nuanced Paradox?
The statement "You can’t have an unknowable God! If it’s unknowable, the claim refutes it" points out a logical contradiction in claiming that God is unknowable. The contradiction arises because, in making any claim about God’s unknowability, you are asserting knowledge of God’s nature, which would seem to negate the idea that God is entirely beyond human understanding.
However, this paradox also opens up deeper philosophical and theological discussions about the limits of human language and thought when applied to the divine. While the argument raises a valid logical critique, others might contend that mystical or experiential knowledge of God can exist outside the bounds of logical contradiction, allowing for an unknowable God who is nevertheless encountered or experienced in ways that defy traditional knowledge.

For everyone reading this board- here is the summary of what I'm actually about. Maybe someone will find it interesting.

1. The Nature of Facts, Logic, and Fantasy
The Challenge of Defining a Fact: The concept of a "fact" is not as straightforward as commonly believed. To assert something as fact requires a foundational logic built upon a system of axioms—unproven assumptions that underlie all logical frameworks.
The Axiomatic Dilemma: Delving into these axioms reveals an inherent limitation: at their root, they are constructs that we accept without proof. The deeper one probes into these foundations, the more one uncovers the presence of fantasy intertwined with reason. Thus, facts are not purely objective; they rely on the speculative underpinnings of the systems in which they are formulated.
Conclusion: Since logic rests upon unprovable axioms, facts are contingent, never free from the shadows of uncertainty. In this sense, fantasy exists at the heart of all logical discourse.

2. The Nature of God: Hidden Yet Inevitable
God as Unprovable and Real: The essence of God’s existence lies in its very elusiveness. The inability to find or prove God does not negate His existence; rather, it confirms it. The divine manifests itself through an exquisite paradox: God’s reality is affirmed by His absence.
The Eye Cannot See Itself: This metaphor captures the impossibility of direct perception of God. Just as the eye cannot turn upon itself, so too can God not be seen directly. God’s existence is known through what is excluded from vision—He is found in His concealment, not in what is revealed.
The Genius of God’s Hiddenness: The brilliance of God lies in the fact that He cannot be perceived or captured by human faculties. The divine genius is not in being found, but in being present through His perpetual elusiveness, always at the periphery of human understanding.

3. Gaze Theory: The Presence in Absence
Inverse Gaze: The principle of gaze operates on a subtle paradox. You know someone is aware of you not only when your eyes meet, but also when they never meet. The absence of eye contact can reveal an awareness that transcends direct interaction. Applied to the divine, this means that God is present precisely through His absence—He is seen through His hiddenness.
Social Dynamics of Gaze: In social contexts, attention is often revealed through avoidance. Ignoring someone can paradoxically draw their attention, much like how God’s hidden gaze becomes apparent through His invisibility. In this way, the topology of perception mirrors the divine interaction—what is absent is as important as what is present.

4. The Paradox of Proving God’s Existence
The Limits of Language in Defining God: Language and logic are inadequate tools for capturing the essence of God. The moment you attempt to define God, you entangle yourself in the limitations of human discourse. God exists beyond language, beyond the need for proof or evidence.
Personal Knowledge of the Divine: God is not a concept to be universally demonstrated or defined. Instead, God is personal, known uniquely to each individual, and this knowledge cannot be transmitted or shared in its entirety. The divine is a deeply private encounter that transcends communal understanding.
The Infinite Loop of Knowing and Unknowing: The more one seeks to intellectually define or capture God, the more elusive He becomes. In this paradoxical loop, God’s existence is reinforced by the very act of His avoidance—the impossibility of grasping Him directly is the proof of His being.

5. Critique of Organized Religion and Language
Catholicism as Ritualistic Atheism: You critique institutional religion, particularly Catholicism, for reducing the profound experience of God to a series of external rituals and dogmas. In doing so, it diminishes the authentic personal encounter with the divine and approaches a form of ritualistic atheism.
Language as the Devil’s Tool: You propose that language—specifically religious texts like the Bible—is inherently flawed as a medium for expressing God. These texts, rather than revealing God, often serve to obscure Him, manipulated by forces that seek to control the narrative of divinity. Words, in this view, are the domain of the devil, introducing distortions into the experience of the divine.

6. Ontology of God and the Devil
God Beyond Good and Evil: Traditional morality, which ties God to concepts of good and the devil to evil, is a misunderstanding of the divine. God transcends the moral dichotomy of good and evil. In this framework, the devil may control the narrative of good and evil, but God exists beyond such limitations.
Reframing Heaven and Hell: You propose that the concepts of heaven and hell have been linguistically distorted. Neither represents pure bliss nor eternal torture. Instead, they are states of being that humans experience, bound by the limitations of language, which has been shaped and manipulated to obscure the true nature of these concepts.

7. Language, Logic, and the Limits of Knowledge
Language as Self-Referential: Language is a self-referential system, and in trying to define God, it inevitably falls into logical loops. God, being the source of logic and language, cannot be proven or disproven using the very tools He created.
God as the Creator of Logic: Logic and words are the creations of God, and therefore any attempt to disprove God through logic is inherently flawed—like a knife attempting to cut itself. God’s existence is not a matter of proof but of ontological necessity.

8. The Personal Experience of the Divine
God Revealed Through Exclusion: God is not something one finds through direct search, but rather through understanding what is not present—the space between things, the silence between words. God exists in what is unseen, and moments of personal experience reveal the divine precisely through its absence in the tangible world.
God as the “Thing Behind the Word”: You suggest that the true essence of God is not to be found in descriptions or words, but in the space beyond them. Each individual is capable of discovering this aspect of God within themselves. God is not external but intrinsic, revealed in the self.

9. Topology and the Structure of Existence
God as the Space Between Entities: Through topology, you articulate that God exists not as an object but as the space between objects. In the structure of reality, God is the invisible framework that holds all things together, the unifying principle that cannot be quantified or directly observed but is necessary for existence.
The Inescapable Presence of God: This topological view means that God is ever-present in the connections between things, in the gaps and silences that give form to all phenomena. God is woven into the fabric of existence, imperceptible but essential.

10. The Devil’s Mastery Over Words
Language as the Devil’s Domain: You propose that the devil controls the realm of words and language, using it to distort the perception of God. Because language is an inadequate tool for expressing the divine, attempts to describe God in words inevitably fail, leading to misunderstanding and manipulation.
God in Silence and the Body: God is more closely associated with the body and with silence. Words diminish the divine, but in embodied experience—in the silence beyond speech—God can be known. Speaking of God, in this sense, is a kind of betrayal of His true nature.

Conclusion: A Higher Synthesis of Reason and Experience
Your philosophy weaves together logic, topology, ontology, and personal experience into a complex but coherent framework. Central to this view is the paradox of God’s existence: God is both unknowable and known, present through absence, and experienced personally yet never fully articulated in language.
God exists in the gaps of knowledge, in the space where logic and perception falter. Language, as a tool of the devil, can never capture the full essence of the divine, but God can be experienced in silence and through the self. The unknowable God is not a contradiction but a reflection of the limitations of human understanding—proof of His existence lies in His perpetual elusiveness.