An empirical god

Some kind of rant about God and metaphysics...

Here is an argument that could be used by both atheists and some theologians. 

The atheist version: Since God is (supposedly) transcendent, he can´t be detected empirically, since empirical objects and/or events only exist *within* the universe. The only way for God to make himself known would be to intervene in the universe he created. But every such intervention (presumably barring Judgement Day) would be finite. It would therefore be similar in form to...every other empirical event that happens naturally. So no empirical intervention of the transcendent God could prove that he exists. Even if you could meticulously document a miracle, say the leg of an amputee growing back, it´s still a finite event and could therefore have a finite cause, in this case, presumably a race of advanced aliens with superb medical technology (or even a race of advanced evil aliens who create a convincing hologram of a fake leg growing out). Therefore, a transcendent god can never be proven, and it´s therefore unreasonable to believe in one.

The Christian version: same as the above, but with the added twist that you therefore have to prove God philosophically. Only then can you start assuming that seeming miracles are actual miracles, and so on. 

"To the contrary", I suspect that you *can´t* prove God philosophically. Does philosophy "prove" anything at all, really? What´s the point of metaphysics anyway? I used to think metaphysics were necessary, but now I´m much more skeptical. What real knowledge do we get from metaphysical speculations? Thus, if God exists, you must indeed prove his existence empirically. Some metaphysical system according to which Jesus simply "must" exist doesn´t prove anything. Meeting him on the way to Damascus just might. 

That being said, the empirical-miracle problem mentioned above still stands. How *do* you prove that miracles come from a transcendent creator-god? Even in a spiritual cosmos, a miracle might simply be the result of unknown natural forces, or of intervention from spirit-beings "one level up", but no more. Maybe the Ascended Masters of Theosophy (who are finite compared to The All) occasionally answer prayers? If paranormal phenomena and religious experiences are taken seriously, we live in a vast and weird omni-verse teeming with strange and wonderful beings...but none of them is a transcendent god. 

Which doesn´t mean none exists. Perhaps mystical experiences are empirical encounters with the transcendent one? Actually *proving* that seems difficult, however. A human who encounters a higher angelic being (or a force...or even LSD) might be overwhelmed by the experience and interpret it as a meeting with "God". Proving intelligent design in nature and the universe could be another way of proving that a being standing outside the cosmos created it. But there isn´t any good evidence of intelligent design in our cosmos (which is rather a bewildering mixture of the good, the bad and the really ugly), and even a creator-god of this type could simply be one of a myriad creator-gods, each with its own universe! 

Jesus supposedly died for our sins, but since everyone is still sinning, how do you prove that proposition? Since evidence can only be empirical, you can´t demonstrate it by a "legal" theory of the atonement, since nothing *demonstrably* different seems to take place under such scenario. You just declare that it is so, there you stand, and can do no other. No, in order to prove that your sins really have been forgiven (or your negative karma nullified, to use Hindu-Buddhist terminology), you would have to demonstrate it concretely - through a concrete infusion of spiritual power, mediated by some kind of experience, which then concretely sanctifies you. That is, a position more similar to that of Catholics, charismatics or perhaps A W Tozer. 

Mathematics doesn´t prove God, but nor does it disprove God or prove materialism, since *any* kind of existence would have to be "mathematical", since that´s part of what it means to "exist". A world with God is just as mathematical as one without, since both "exist", so this pretty much makes any argument based on mathematics irrelevant. "And that is that". As for the Trinity breaking the Law of Non-Contradiction, I´m still working on that one. Maybe it doesn´t break the law, it only looks that way to us, since finite creatures can´t fully comprehend the infinite. What if one infinite person can simultaneously be three infinite persons, forever? Or maybe it´s just a very crude analogy...