Existence of God/gods thread thread

[Neanderthaland]

This is a weird attempt at gatekeeping.

In matters of fact gatekeeping is very important. We don’t allow everyone to claim to be a mathematician or physicist, do we?

What do you think constitutes expertise in the subject of the existence of god or gods? Because there is no such thing.

Did we resolve weak Goldbach Conjecture by asking everyone to work on it?

Here is the actual proof:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.2897
https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5252
https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7748

Unless you can demonstrate that this is a hard science with evidence that can be rigorously explored, this is a pointless analogy.
This has nothing to do with god or gods.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I think I have already established criteria here. If Torah-like events happen then the religious question will be resolved.

Such as what, exactly? Moses and the parting of the sea?

If that happens again it will be pretty clear that some form of theism is factually accurate and that the religion of the people who walked through Red Sea, Mediterranean Sea or some other sea is likely factually accurate.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

In matters of fact gatekeeping is very important. We don’t allow everyone to claim to be a mathematician or physicist, do we?

What do you think constitutes expertise in the subject of the existence of god or gods? Because there is no such thing.

Did we resolve weak Goldbach Conjecture by asking everyone to work on it?

Here is the actual proof:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.2897
https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5252
https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7748

Unless you can demonstrate that this is a hard science with evidence that can be rigorously explored, this is a pointless analogy.
This has nothing to do with god or gods.

The existence of deities is an issue even way more serious than hard science since getting it wrong can have very serious consequences. So why not restrict it to some supernaturality verification and falsification committee? False religious experiences are pretty common so it’s in everyone’s interest to actually take the committee seriously.

For example “Prayers by TB Joshua have caused Ms. Sarah Olatokunbo of Lagos, Nigeria to recover from AIDS” is a fact-based statement that indeed should be scrutinized.

[Neanderthaland]

What do you think constitutes expertise in the subject of the existence of god or gods? Because there is no such thing.


Unless you can demonstrate that this is a hard science with evidence that can be rigorously explored, this is a pointless analogy.
This has nothing to do with god or gods.

The existence of deities is an issue even way more serious than hard science since getting it wrong can have very serious consequences. So why not restrict it to some supernaturality verification and falsification committee?

You didn't answer my question. What constitutes expertise on this subject?

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

The existence of deities is an issue even way more serious than hard science since getting it wrong can have very serious consequences. So why not restrict it to some supernaturality verification and falsification committee?

You didn't answer my question. What constitutes expertise on this subject?

Either good knowledge of a major religion (in order to weed out false religious messengers of the religion using its own rules) or experience in investigating spiritual claims (e.g. James Randi).

Statements such as “Enoch Adeboye is a Christian prophet” and “Kate Hudson can communicate with dead people” are fact-based statements and as such they need to be falsified just like “Donald Trump does not exist”, “Benyamin Netanyahu is the PM of Israel” and “There exist 60 states in Germany”.

It is really not that different from Vatican investigating supposed miracles.

[The Marlborough]

Such as what, exactly? Moses and the parting of the sea?

If that happens again it will be pretty clear that some form of theism is factually accurate and that the religion of the people who walked through Red Sea, Mediterranean Sea or some other sea is likely factually accurate.

I mean it depends on how you look at the story. From a pure, hard literal POV yeah you'll run into problems. However one geeky boi did argue that something close to what was described could have happened. It just depends on what translations you are working with and where certain places roughly may have been, which however does differ quite a bit from the popular imagination of it. It's worth noting that wind setdowns have occurred elsewhere, fleeing prophets and his people notwithstanding. But this is kind of the crux of the issue because throughout time you'll have literalist and non-literalist readings and interpretations of texts. Which translation is better, this one or that one. This has been the source of debate within religions for a long time. Then you would have to justify why only the literalist interpretation of this particular translation can be counted as a genuine view on the religious text and version of events and therefore the metric in which to judge evidence as being valid. I mean Kevin Hamm and some atheist bloggers are on the same side when it comes to that paper that I linked to.

So was the story exactly as how it is told in contemporary translations and depictions? Or was it is a more fanciful retelling of some historical event? Or, if the translation of Sea of Reeds is the more truthful translation, does the narrative potentially become closer to how it was told but obviously quite a bit different than how the event is popularly imagined? Because I mean a bunch of refugees fleeing over some exposed mudflats during a wind setdown on Lake Tanis is quite a bit different in terms of imagery compared to Charlton Heston splitting the Red Sea in two.

[Neanderthaland]

You didn't answer my question. What constitutes expertise on this subject?

Either good knowledge of a major religion (in order to weed out false religious messengers of the religion using its own rules)

This is very much what the religious want you to do. "You can't discuss the truth of our religion unless you at least understand every possible intricacy of our supposed metaphysical models and have a PhD in Theology!" But having this knowledge makes you no more qualified to discuss the truth of these claims then having detailed knowledge of the Star Wars franchise proves that certain things happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

or experience in investigating spiritual claims (e.g. James Randi).

Big fan of Randi, but proving a negative, and a vague, unfalsifiable negative at that, might be a bit much even for him.

Statements such as “Enoch Adeboye is a Christian prophet” and “Kate Hudson can communicate with dead people” are fact-based statements and as such they need to be falsified just like “Donald Trump does not exist”, “Benyamin Netanyahu is the PM of Israel” and “There exist 60 states in Germany”.

Yes they are. But none of those are about the existence of god, so I'm not sure why you mention them.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Either good knowledge of a major religion (in order to weed out false religious messengers of the religion using its own rules)

This is very much what the religious want you to do. "You can't discuss the truth of our religion unless you at least understand every possible intricacy of our supposed metaphysical models and have a PhD in Theology!" But having this knowledge makes you no more qualified to discuss the truth of these claims then having detailed knowledge of the Star Wars franchise proves that certain things happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

or experience in investigating spiritual claims (e.g. James Randi).

Big fan of Randi, but proving a negative, and a vague, unfalsifiable negative at that, might be a bit much even for him.

Statements such as “Enoch Adeboye is a Christian prophet” and “Kate Hudson can communicate with dead people” are fact-based statements and as such they need to be falsified just like “Donald Trump does not exist”, “Benyamin Netanyahu is the PM of Israel” and “There exist 60 states in Germany”.

Yes they are. But none of those are about the existence of god, so I'm not sure why you mention them.

Having theologians on the committee is pretty handy when we are dealing with proclaimed OBE, NDE, hell visit etc of a certain religion. We clearly can’t expect them to be objective on dealing with all claims. However since the stuff I mentioned is actually pretty common and false proclamations from supposed prophets such as Efrain Rodriguez of Puerto Rico back in 2014 (I actually believed him back then) does have concrete consequences since he asked people to prep and to avoid the East Coast of the United States due to a supposed supernatural tsunami that was supposed to happen in 2014 that never happened. Moreover it will be useful to ask Muslim theologians whether what’s comparable to a proclaimed modern Christian miracle has happened in the Muslim world and vice versa.

The existence of certain deities is not falsifiable. However supernatural events are. All religions are accompanied by supernatural events. These individual events, if modern, are up to scrutiny. Folks such as James Randi could be very effective in testing them. We will never have evidence of absence. However supposed evidence of existence should be examined so that we know whether absence of evidence remains true.

[Neanderthaland]

This is very much what the religious want you to do. "You can't discuss the truth of our religion unless you at least understand every possible intricacy of our supposed metaphysical models and have a PhD in Theology!" But having this knowledge makes you no more qualified to discuss the truth of these claims then having detailed knowledge of the Star Wars franchise proves that certain things happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.


Big fan of Randi, but proving a negative, and a vague, unfalsifiable negative at that, might be a bit much even for him.


Yes they are. But none of those are about the existence of god, so I'm not sure why you mention them.

Having theologians on the committee is pretty handy when we are dealing with proclaimed OBE, NDE, hell visit etc of a certain religion. We clearly can’t expect them to be objective on dealing with all claims. However since the stuff I mentioned is actually pretty common and false proclamations from supposed prophets such as Efrain Rodriguez of Puerto Rico back in 2014 (I actually believed him back then) does have concrete consequences since he asked people to prep and to avoid the East Coast of the United States due to a supposed supernatural tsunami that was supposed to happen in 2014 that never happened. Moreover it will be useful to ask Muslim theologians whether what’s comparable to a proclaimed modern Christian miracle has happened in the Muslim world and vice versa.

The existence of certain deities is not falsifiable. However supernatural events are. All religions are accompanied by supernatural events. These individual events, if modern, are up to scrutiny. Folks such as James Randi could be very effective in testing them. We will never have evidence of absence. However supposed evidence of existence should be examined so that we know whether absence of evidence remains true.

Cool. So nobody is allowed to talk about the subject unless they're on your weird committee of "experts," none of whom have any actual expertise that would enable them to prove the existence of something. That about right?

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

If that happens again it will be pretty clear that some form of theism is factually accurate and that the religion of the people who walked through Red Sea, Mediterranean Sea or some other sea is likely factually accurate.

I mean it depends on how you look at the story. From a pure, hard literal POV yeah you'll run into problems. However one geeky boi did argue that something close to what was described could have happened. It just depends on what translations you are working with and where certain places roughly may have been, which however does differ quite a bit from the popular imagination of it. It's worth noting that wind setdowns have occurred elsewhere, fleeing prophets and his people notwithstanding. But this is kind of the crux of the issue because throughout time you'll have literalist and non-literalist readings and interpretations of texts. Which translation is better, this one or that one. This has been the source of debate within religions for a long time. Then you would have to justify why only the literalist interpretation of this particular translation can be counted as a genuine view on the religious text and version of events and therefore the metric in which to judge evidence as being valid. I mean Kevin Hamm and some atheist bloggers are on the same side when it comes to that paper that I linked to.

So was the story exactly as how it is told in contemporary translations and depictions? Or was it is a more fanciful retelling of some historical event? Or, if the translation of Sea of Reeds is the more truthful translation, does the narrative potentially become closer to how it was told but obviously quite a bit different than how the event is popularly imagined? Because I mean a bunch of refugees fleeing over some exposed mudflats during a wind setdown on Lake Tanis is quite a bit different in terms of imagery compared to Charlton Heston splitting the Red Sea in two.

Personally I’m a literalist. I believe Torah is very clear. It’s the later generations who invented faith due to the religious confusion also began to support vague interpretations.

If manna begins to fall again in Sinai, Israel, NW Saudi Arabia etc it will be very obvious. The chemical composition of manna will be examined and the entire world will know about it through videos, photos and reports from people who have actually eaten it. Of course if the lab holding manna mysteriously explodes without any explosives this will also be known.

[Major-Tom]

I don’t have the damndest idea anymore. I went from Catholic to atheistic to Catholic again before spending my last several years as someone who just has no idea. I consider myself secular, but honestly, I can’t say where I stand in terms of deities. If there were one, I’m sure it wouldn’t be quite as simple as a singular, all-knowing, fundamentally judgmental entity. Probably something more complex given that every religion seems to touch on similar themes while diverging greatly on the fine print.

Not sure if this makes me an agnostic or just a general skeptic. Either way, I’m respectful of anyone’s religious affiliation so long as they don’t use it for malicious intent or as a way to push their own morality system.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

-snip-

There are big questions of existence and morality that don’t have good empirical explanations and perhaps never will have good empirical explanations. As long as that remains the case there is a room for spirituality and a room for a God.

I consider myself an atheist still because religious people insist that we know God well enough to be able to cite his opinions on things like human sexuality or international politics, which doesn’t at all square with the God described in the above paragraph. That God, by definition, is mysterious and unknowable. Calling myself an atheist is easier than trying to explain the subtleties of my agnosticism, and it describes my views well enough anyways.

Based on what you say, it seems like you’re in a similar boat.

[Kowani]

If that happens again it will be pretty clear that some form of theism is factually accurate and that the religion of the people who walked through Red Sea, Mediterranean Sea or some other sea is likely factually accurate.

I mean it depends on how you look at the story. From a pure, hard literal POV yeah you'll run into problems. However one geeky boi did argue that something close to what was described could have happened. It just depends on what translations you are working with and where certain places roughly may have been, which however does differ quite a bit from the popular imagination of it. It's worth noting that wind setdowns have occurred elsewhere, fleeing prophets and his people notwithstanding. But this is kind of the crux of the issue because throughout time you'll have literalist and non-literalist readings and interpretations of texts. Which translation is better, this one or that one. This has been the source of debate within religions for a long time. Then you would have to justify why only the literalist interpretation of this particular translation can be counted as a genuine view on the religious text and version of events and therefore the metric in which to judge evidence as being valid. I mean Kevin Hamm and some atheist bloggers are on the same side when it comes to that paper that I linked to.

So was the story exactly as how it is told in contemporary translations and depictions? Or was it is a more fanciful retelling of some historical event? Or, if the translation of Sea of Reeds is the more truthful translation, does the narrative potentially become closer to how it was told but obviously quite a bit different than how the event is popularly imagined? Because I mean a bunch of refugees fleeing over some exposed mudflats during a wind setdown on Lake Tanis is quite a bit different in terms of imagery compared to Charlton Heston splitting the Red Sea in two.

i think there are...other problems with the exodus story than just the parting of the red sea, which may at least be physically possible (or something similar, according to your paper)

[Elvato]

orthodox christianity gang where u at

[Nakena]

Personally I’m a literalist. I believe Torah is very clear. It’s the later generations who invented faith due to the religious confusion also began to support vague interpretations.

If manna begins to fall again in Sinai, Israel, NW Saudi Arabia etc it will be very obvious. The chemical composition of manna will be examined and the entire world will know about it through videos, photos and reports from people who have actually eaten it. Of course if the lab holding manna mysteriously explodes without any explosives this will also be known.

The most likeliest hypothesis if any of that were anywhere close to real, would be as Reza Jorjani has suggested, that it would be indicating an interference of an non-terran, alien power. So basically Yaweh would be some kind of alien being worshipped.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Big fan of Randi, but proving a negative, and a vague, unfalsifiable negative at that, might be a bit much even for him.

I was slightly surprised his death went without comment on here.

[Esperantujo 2]

Is there a god? Not yet. Just as my motto says: we are beginning to be human. Ref Olaf Stapledon, Isaac Asimov, Vernor Vinge, Douglas Adams.

[Esperantujo 2]

I think we have to ask: can something exist outside time? My guess is yes, but not necessarily anything we would recognise as living.

[Godular]

Question: Do I believe in god?

Answer: Yeah! It's always important to believe in yourself!

In reference to the OP: The Ontological Argument is horse-shit, though I freely admit there are other posters here who are better at stating why than I.

Also: It's cute that you think you can set the rules of an NSG thread. Tee hee.

[The Marlborough]

I mean it depends on how you look at the story. From a pure, hard literal POV yeah you'll run into problems. However one geeky boi did argue that something close to what was described could have happened. It just depends on what translations you are working with and where certain places roughly may have been, which however does differ quite a bit from the popular imagination of it. It's worth noting that wind setdowns have occurred elsewhere, fleeing prophets and his people notwithstanding. But this is kind of the crux of the issue because throughout time you'll have literalist and non-literalist readings and interpretations of texts. Which translation is better, this one or that one. This has been the source of debate within religions for a long time. Then you would have to justify why only the literalist interpretation of this particular translation can be counted as a genuine view on the religious text and version of events and therefore the metric in which to judge evidence as being valid. I mean Kevin Hamm and some atheist bloggers are on the same side when it comes to that paper that I linked to.

So was the story exactly as how it is told in contemporary translations and depictions? Or was it is a more fanciful retelling of some historical event? Or, if the translation of Sea of Reeds is the more truthful translation, does the narrative potentially become closer to how it was told but obviously quite a bit different than how the event is popularly imagined? Because I mean a bunch of refugees fleeing over some exposed mudflats during a wind setdown on Lake Tanis is quite a bit different in terms of imagery compared to Charlton Heston splitting the Red Sea in two.

i think there are...other problems with the exodus story than just the parting of the red sea, which may at least be physically possible (or something similar, according to your paper)

There are especially in terms of various events that could have been related to the story of Exodus ranging across a wide period of time within the chronology of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages* and which don't hold up to more recent archaeological findings from when these events are commonly believed to have roughly occurred.

However there are many hypotheses as to how the story came to be, such as a condensing multiple similar events into one narrative for the ease of storytelling. That is because fundamentally it is didactic literature based off of a number of historical cores meant to teach people about the process of how the relationship with God came to be (which has been common throughout history but was especially so in the Ancient Near East). Which shouldn't be surprising because most of these stories were handed down through oral story telling for quite a long time. It wasn't even until the Babylonian Exile that it was even all first compiled into a single form that we would find more recognizable. I find the idea pushed by some that "it's all made up, none of it is based off of any events" highly unlikely given that there are events that we do know about that could have, at the least, served as a core in which the stories came from even if later condensed and flowered up. Not to mention that we don't even know everything from those other groups as well and a bunch of other assorted problems. That Egyptian accounts on some things are either sparse or lacking could be a result of said information being lost, not being found yet, or simply the Egyptians whitewashed it just like how any major whitewashes some of its own history for various reasons. It's a period that has a lot of unclear things because certain things do not always add up in different accounts compared to either other accounts and/or archaeological findings.

*I should note that the current chronology of this time period does puzzle a number of scholars given a number of events not seemingly matching with what has been found compared to what has been recorded. For example Shishak as the pharaoh that sacks Jerusalem is commonly believed to be Shoshenq I but Shoshenq I doesn't list conquering/sacking any cities within the central regions of the southern Levant, only to the south and north. Also iirc a number of observed astronomical phenomenon throughout just the wider ME doesn't always align with when they occurred according to astronomical calculations. So these are problems itself within the chronology of the period.

David Rohl's New Chronology would fix a number of these problems, but it has its own problems to boot and rests heavily on assuming that there is a yet unheard of second Ashur-uballit who is supposedly to have reigned during the Middle Assyrian Empire era which has yet to be found at all and is thus incredibly weak in which to base such a radical transforming of the entire chronology. That said, he's not pulling everything out of his ass (it's clear he knows his stuff) and some of the changes made to it would better align with things like observed astronomical phenomenon. Then if you take some of the other claims it would start matching up more often (though not always entirely and some of it is conjecture but that's normal tbh). Eg if the Exodus and the Book of Joshua (or what inspired the stories) actually occur closer to the Middle Bronze Age, well we have evidence suggesting Jericho was violently destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age as opposed to the Late Bronze Age when, iirc, it wasn't even inhabited (or barely at least). Also his argument that in Canaan Ramses II had a name close to what may be Shishak is on the fence. I'm not sure if it's the name of Ramses II among the Canaanites itself is disputed or just that it being linked to what would change into Shishak is. That said, if such a name that could reasonably change to something along the lines of Shishak was being used for Ramses II among the people of the southern Levant, I find it odd that the Israelites would name a more average pharaoh, who may not even have attacked Jerusalem, as opposed to one of the greatest rulers in human history and is known to have campaigned against Jerusalem would not be. I mean, Ramses II is up there with some of the biggest heavy hitters in history, hard guy to just gloss over, especially if he attacks your city. Would also coincide a bit more reasonably for claims about Solomon's wealth, considering the ludicrous prosperity of the Late Bronze Age and the ability for Egypt to host relatively large armies of the sort mentioned compared to the much less prosperous and wealthy Early Iron Age when Egypt was already on the path to losing its power and potentially couldn't sustain armies the size of which is claimed for that particular event. But there are also other hypotheses you could come up with to argue against it as well which many have done and have raised valid points and alternative explanations that would still match up with the current chronology.

However it's not like there is a complete lack of evidence to suggest, or reasons to ponder that, at the least, some bits and pieces of the chronology may be further ahead or further back than what is currently held to be the case; which in turn could lead to some figures currently believed to be a certain historical figures within the Bible may actually be other people as well. Which is why I agree that the overarching radical rethinking of the entire chronology of the entire period is incredibly weak and kind of absurd, but I don't think that means every little bit of its claims may necessarily be wrong or at least not entirely wrong. It is possible that certain bits of the timeline are different from when we currently think they may have occurred and therefore certain events could potentially more closely align. Which is why I think it should at least warrant more closer examination. It wouldn't be the first time chronological events have been changed based upon new findings in different places and fields as well as better arguments explaining the discrepancies.

[Crawdad Town]

What I don't understand is why people are so quick to falsify events in, for example, Greek mythology, yet will acknowledge the Bible as truth. Stories change. A lot. Think about how much your friend is going to distort the facts when talking about a bear he saw while going hiking. He's going to describe it as massive and menacing and terrifying, when in reality, it likely calmly walked across a trail at the edge of his view and then disappeared. And that is how much something can be distorted directly from a primary source. Imagine thousands of years of passing down stories and claiming that what happened with the current description is true. Whether or not God is real, I don't think that the millennia-long game of telephone that is the Bible actually happened at all like it is written.

[Page]

What I don't understand is why people are so quick to falsify events in, for example, Greek mythology, yet will acknowledge the Bible as truth. Stories change. A lot. Think about how much your friend is going to distort the facts when talking about a bear he saw while going hiking. He's going to describe it as massive and menacing and terrifying, when in reality, it likely calmly walked across a trail at the edge of his view and then disappeared. And that is how much something can be distorted directly from a primary source. Imagine thousands of years of passing down stories and claiming that what happened with the current description is true. Whether or not God is real, I don't think that the millennia-long game of telephone that is the Bible actually happened at all like it is written.

Even the translation of a single word can radically alter the meaning. Many English versions of the Bible translate both "sheol" and "Gehenna" as "hell" despite the fact the former means something closer to grave and there is no indication that people in the Sheol are conscious and the latter refers to a real valley which is considered an unholy place because pagan human sacrifices were made there.

[The Three Palins]

What I don't understand is why people are so quick to falsify events in, for example, Greek mythology, yet will acknowledge the Bible as truth. Stories change. A lot. Think about how much your friend is going to distort the facts when talking about a bear he saw while going hiking. He's going to describe it as massive and menacing and terrifying, when in reality, it likely calmly walked across a trail at the edge of his view and then disappeared. And that is how much something can be distorted directly from a primary source. Imagine thousands of years of passing down stories and claiming that what happened with the current description is true. Whether or not God is real, I don't think that the millennia-long game of telephone that is the Bible actually happened at all like it is written.

The earliest manuscripts are part of John and are no earlier than 125 ad. That's about three generations of the stories being passed on by mouth.

Yeah, that does make a mockery of the "word of God" and yet most of the stories still have a moral to them, showing that the story tellers still believed them and tried to reproduce what they had heard themselves. They were probably dumbed down somewhat (the teller never got the finer points and with fatigue of retelling just left them out).

The game of "telephone" really only produces bizarre results if it's played light-heartedly. If all players considered the message important, they would mentally fix the mis-heard words to make sense in context. They might also simplify it though, substituting an easier word for instance, keeping the core meaning but mangling any nuance in it.

The "Canonical Gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have the most in common, and almost certainly came via an earlier book ("Q bible") which has been lost. Believers generally think those similarities prove the stories come by different apostles to the First Council of Nicea version of the Bible, but they're unable to explain why events and dictates from all the other books don't appear in the Canonical Gospels.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

Yeah. I mean, if any sort of divine deity existed, then surely we could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they exist.

Inb4 the theists come with a battering ram saying "ah yes, the classic 'i can't see him therefore he doesn't exist' argument"

I mean what would you consider an acceptable standard of proof? Also take note that many religions are quite open with saying that they cannot prove the existence of God materially. You wont find a lot of theologians, good ones at least, who claim that you can just create a physics experiment and presto you've proven God's existence.

I'd say that if scientific equipment can detect the presence of god, that will be sufficient proof of his existence. We can prove Donald Trump exists because he can be detected (seen, heard, touched, smelled, detected emission of infrared radiation from an object shaped like Donald Trump, etc).

[Suriyanakhon]

Yup. This is why I’m agnostic. Emunah is definitely a thing in Judaism and there are so many people debating doctrines which is evidence of extreme religious confusion and lack of actual divine guidance.

You know, this doesn’t happen with Donald Trump or AOC. There are people who love them. There are people who hate them. Yet almost all agree that they exist.

Yeah. I mean, if any sort of divine deity existed, then surely we could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they exist.

Inb4 the theists come with a battering ram saying "ah yes, the classic 'i can't see him therefore he doesn't exist' argument"

I mean, all historians agree that the Buddha existed, and we would argue that the sublimity and insight of the Dhamma proved he was divine.