Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God did not fail because 93% of the world population are believers. The reason they all have different beliefs is because Messengers of God reveal different messages in every age.

I see. So there is -- in fact -- no single message that can be considered "true" or "correct." God delivers different messages, resulting in a world of religious disagreement -- often enough resulting in conflict -- on purpose?

No, that does not testify to any failure on the part of God, it only testifies to the failure on the part of humans. Who created those religious sects?

God is -- or so I've been told -- perfect and omnipotent. Humans are -- or so I've been told -- neither perfect nor omnipotent, and therefore, by that very nature, certain to fail.

And "who created those religious sects?" Why those who claimed that they were "Messengers," by your own definition.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I believe that God intervenes in the world by sending Messengers who are human and divine. I believe that they can do miracles

What would be evidence (facts) to support your belief? I'll give two examples:

First, allowing the messengers to be observed, sampled, and tested to show that indeed they are both human AND DIVINE. You know, a full blood analysis, x-rays, tissue samples and so on, which will clearly show that in addition human components, there are components that cannot be identified as human.

Second, allow the messengers to be repeatedly tested under controlled laboratory conditions so that the miracles can be observed and studied. For example, let doctors select people who have illness or injury, have images and samples and so on the patients up to the time the miracle-worker performs their amazing abilities, and can immediately confirm the cure using the same instruments.

Finally, you believe in the messengers and the god. That's okay with me. But the stories you cite about the messengers are generally second, third, or more remote-hand testimony.

And even if first-hand, are still simply testimony, made by and recorded by and written down by and repeatedly translated into other languages by fallible humans.

Testimony is not evidence of much value except in some courts of law. In the actual world in which we live, evidence should show up as, for example, a partially human messenger, or an actual miracle.

Or incontrovertible predictions of future events, under double-blind conditions, that are specific enough that the event and its impacts can be verified independently.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes.

It doesn't seem like it, though. Least from a couple threads you've created. Shrugs.

 

[Nimos]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

Hi Trailblazer

For evidence to have any value, they need to point or back up about a claim as being a reasonable explanation. But even here evidence might be weak or strong.

As an example I could claim that Im God, because I can read people's minds. And one of my friends could tell you that it is in fact true, because I have done it lots of time with him. Then that is evidence backing up my claim, however they are extremely weak, first of all because he is my friend, so he might be lying, but also we know that magicians do tricks like this to fool people.

Its not exactly different than what these messengers are claiming, we don't have anything besides what they claim, to backup whether they are telling the truth or not. And again, we know from history and even today that people time after time have get fooled by people making similar claims.

So for these people to stand out, they need to provide some form of evidence, that points towards them actually being messengers as being the most likely or only explanation. And so far they haven't. Their writings, whether you like them or not, are not evidence for their claims.

This is what atheists care about, not whether they write good or bad things, whether they as people are good or bad. We completely ignore that, we care about their claim and the evidence they can provide for them.

And for these people it would be a long process and the fact is that no one that have ever claimed to have a connection or be divine, have ever been able to demonstrate it. Because none of them have ever provided evidence for even God existing in the first place. And as atheists, we don't simply accept that as being a given, that as well these people have to proof. If they can't, their claim of being a messenger is irrelevant.

It would be exactly the same, if I told you that through me you can communicate with some aliens from another galaxy, because im a communicator specially chosen by them. Unless, I prove that these aliens actually exists, why would you care about my claim of being a communicator?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

Well if an entire theistic religion has no conflict nor trouble whatsoever with interpretations and understandings, are never divided, are amazingly healthy and happy beyond anything else science can explain, never getting sick, have tactile open communications with their God....

That might at least raise an eyebrow.

 

[Windwalker]

Matthew 7:7-8
King James Version
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

If every time I prayed and was given what I asked for, that would be good enough for me.

"God, let me win the lottery. No? Then I'm an atheist until you convince me by making me a winner." Sounds like a good prayer. Can't imagine why that would fail. (For one thing, if everyone won that week that would mean they all got only 50 cents each)

 

[Trailblazer]

Well if an entire theistic religion has no conflict nor trouble whatsoever with interpretations and understandings, are never divided, are amazingly healthy and happy beyond anything else science can explain, never getting sick, have tactile open communications with their God....

That might at least raise an eyebrow.

Do you mean if nobody in that religion was human?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you mean if nobody in that religion was human?

Lol. Heh. Maybe.

 

[Nakosis]

"God, let me win the lottery. No? Then I'm an atheist until you convince me by making me a winner." Sounds like a good prayer. Can't imagine why that would fail. (For one thing, if everyone won that week that would mean they all got only 50 cents each)

Ok, so everyone gets 50 cents who prayed to God. Still pretty convincing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

Perhaps. It depends somewhat on the nature of God. You're assuming a God who wants (or demands) acknowledgement. Not all believers think that to be the case.

If he wants us to believe, then he can easily provide compelling evidence. Let's say, all Bibles glow, and are fireproof. That would not only suggest a higher power, but suggest a Christian version. I don't expect that of God, I'm merely making the point that God doesn't WANT the evidence to be compelling. Or it would be.

So, perhaps that's part of a test. The purpose is pretty hazy to me, but....
Or perhaps the evidence is not compelling because there is no God. Or that God has no interest or demand on people worshipping Him.

 

[Trailblazer]

Its not exactly different than what these messengers are claiming, we don't have anything besides what they claim, to backup whether they are telling the truth or not. And again, we know from history and even today that people time after time have get fooled by people making similar claims.

So for these people to stand out, they need to provide some form of evidence, that points towards them actually being messengers as being the most likely or only explanation. And so far they haven't. Their writings, whether you like them or not, are not evidence for their claims.

This is what atheists care about, not whether they write good or bad things, whether they as people are good or bad. We completely ignore that, we care about their claim and the evidence they can provide for them.

The writings are only part of the evidence. Besides their writings they have their person and the fruits of their mission.
What would you expect to see as evidence for what the Messengers claim?

And for these people it would be a long process and the fact is that no one that have ever claimed to have a connection or be divine, have ever been able to demonstrate it. Because none of them have ever provided evidence for even God existing in the first place.

You are right about that, no Messenger of God has ever been able to demonstrate that they had a connection to God. How could they demonstrate that given God can never be demonstrated?

And as atheists, we don't simply accept that as being a given, that as well these people have to proof. If they can't, their claim of being a messenger is irrelevant.

I do not think anyone should ever accept that as a given. Since it would be impossible for a Messenger to demonstrate communication from God all we can do is look at the Messenger and determine if He is telling the truth.

It would be exactly the same, if I told you that through me you can communicate with some aliens from another galaxy, because im a communicator specially chosen by them. Unless, I prove that these aliens actually exists, why would you care about my claim of being a communicator?

I understand your point but there is no way that God can be proven to exist without the Messengers, who are the proof, so it is kind of a Catch-22 situation.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Ok, so everyone gets 50 cents who prayed to God. Still pretty convincing.

It has to happen more than once--once is a miracle, twice or three times is much more clearly so--and one of those messengers should predict that it will happen on such and such dates...

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps. It depends somewhat on the nature of God. You're assuming a God who wants (or demands) acknowledgement. Not all believers think that to be the case.

I do not believe that God wants to be acknowledged for His own benefit, rather I believe that God was us to acknowledge Him for our benefit, so it is no skin off God's nose so to speak if atheists don't believe in Him.

If he wants us to believe, then he can easily provide compelling evidence. Let's say, all Bibles glow, and are fireproof. That would not only suggest a higher power, but suggest a Christian version. I don't expect that of God, I'm merely making the point that God doesn't WANT the evidence to be compelling. Or it would be.

I fully agree, God could provide evidence that is more compelling. I am happy to see that you understand that God does not WANT the evidence to be compelling, or it would be. Given an omnipotent/omniscient God, that is the only logical conclusion. Most atheists assume that if God existed God would and should provide evidence that would be compelling to everyone, but there is no reason to think that God would or should provide that kind of evidence just because God could do so.

So, perhaps that's part of a test. The purpose is pretty hazy to me, but....

I believe it is part of a test so God can determine which people are wiling to tow the line in order to become a believer.

Or perhaps the evidence is not compelling because there is no God. Or that God has no interest or demand on people worshipping Him.

I think the latter makes more sense than the former. God has no NEED for people to worship Him so those who don't pass the test will be the only ones who miss out. God is fully self-sufficient and self-sustaining, so God does not need anything from humans. God only wants us to worship Him for our own benefit because God loves us.

 

[Trailblazer]

It has to happen more than once--once is a miracle, twice or three times is much more clearly so--and one of those messengers should predict that it will happen on such and such dates...

One of those messengers did predict that certain things would happen on such and such dates...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am assuming an omnipotent, omniscient God who would know what it would take to convince every person of his existence be capable of doing it.

We cannot infer from omnipotence and omniscience that God would do what it would take to convince everyone of his existence. Why should God do that? God does not need our belief.

So God doesn't care if we believe in him. Fair enough. That explanation generally fits the facts (though so does God's non-existence).

The evidence is readily available at all times

It is? What evidence?

but since humans have mucked up the evidence tat was provided in the past, some of the evidence does not agree with other evidence.

I think we might be talking past each other.

When I say that all the evidence for the Moon agrees with itself, I mean that:

- we can observe the Moon in the sky and track its motion
- we can observe the phases of the Moon.
- we can bounce lasers off the reflector the Apollo crew left on the Moon to measure the distance
- we can measure the tides
- we can launch rockets into space and put them in orbit of the Moon.

... and with all of these things, we have complete agreement: we can estimate the distance from the Earth to the Moon based on observations, and that will be the distance we measure directly with the lasers, and both of those things will match up with what we see in the tides.

How all this would translate to God would depend on what this God supposedly does, so if you tell me more about the God you're describing, maybe we can figure out what we should expect to see.

 

[Nimos]

The writings are only part of the evidence. Besides their writings they have their person and the fruits of their mission.
What would you expect to see as evidence for what the Messengers claim?

But that doesn't really matter if its simply part of the evidence, if you think about it. If we take my example of me claiming to be God, does my claim become a lot more plausible, because a person I don't know tells you that he also had me read his mind?

Given my claim is that im God, and lets bring it down a bit and say that God gives me the answers of what people are thinking, so its more like a messenger or a connection with God.

Isn't it more likely that this stranger is lying, maybe I just paid him some money or that I simply fooled him as well, because as a magician I know how to do that, or I was simply lucky, because I did cold reading and know how to do that.

My point is that you can have 500 weak evidences like the ones above, but they don't add up to be a strong evidence. Lets say, I was blindfolded and driven to a secret location by some people that wanted to test me, so under controlled conditions. And they put in a room with no other people, no windows etc. and then ask me to read the mind of some random person they have put in another room. If I did that, it would be damn impressive and worth way more than all these 500 weak evidence. it still wouldn't prove that it was God, but at least it would prove that something very strange was going on.

So equally the evidence that these messenger would have to provide, has to match their claim.

You are right about that, no Messenger of God has ever been able to demonstrate that they had a connection to God. How could they demonstrate that given God can never be demonstrated?

Sure he can, but think about it like this. What type of God would send or make someone a messenger, without giving them the ability to prove what they are claiming? God should be wise enough to know that it is not going to fly.

Also a lot of people will claim that miracles, whatever they are, I simply call them "bad odds gone right" But clearly winning the lottery is not a miracle, despite the odds probably being way worse, than what people will refer to as miracles. My point is, if God is real, he is being pretty ****ty to people that claim that they have some sort of connection to him, because he doesn't give them anything to work with or to back up their claim.

So as the above, is it more likely that these people think the are in connection with God, compared to them actually being so? When we know people make mistakes about things, lie about it on purpose, that they might have a trauma, a psychological condition etc. All these things you have to put against the claim of whether it is the more likely explanation than they have a connection with God, which they can't provide any evidence for. Thereby not saying that they are lying or wrong for that matter. But to take the default position that they most likely have such special connection given the claim they are making, seems irrational given how many cases of mistakes, lies and deceptions, psychological conditions or simply people convinced that they are special etc. there is. What is the chance that this one special person is right? And again, is it rational to jump to the conclusion that they are, when so many before them have been mistaken?

I understand your point but there is no way that God can be proven to exist without the Messengers, who are the proof, so it is kind of a Catch-22 situation.

If I claim that im now a messenger of God, am I telling the truth or not?
Most likely you will say that im not. But that is exactly why God made me a messenger, because as I wrote this reply I started out as an atheist, and by the end im now a messenger, that is a miracle right?

How do you determine whether that is true or not, if I as the messenger make the claim, you won't believe me, because you think im an atheist, unfortunately as with all the other messengers God didn't give me any way to prove it either.

The problem is, that either God is responsible for the catch 22 or that people that want to believe in this, don't demand the evidence or proof from these people that the ought to demand. God could easily prove it if he existed and wanted to. And no I don't buy the free will excuse, it is not valid

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The evidence is readily available at all times but since humans have mucked up the evidence tat was provided in the past, some of the evidence does not agree with other evidence.

Just to build on this a bit more:

If I understand what I think you're getting at, it seems like you're talking about purported revelation to "messengers." IMO, this sort of thing is useless for establishing that God exists. I wouldn't consider it evidence.

 

[Alienistic]

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

4. Ability to think of and prepare for all possibilities and potentials without committing to, or believing any of them.

5. In the grand scheme of things, god(s) or no god(s) - nobody owes anyone else evidence of anything.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

I couldn't tell you specifically. All I know is that the evidence would have to be verifiable. I've yet to see any verifiable evidence that any claimed messenger from God is actually a messenger from God. Unless God has come down and verified that yes, he or she is one of My Messengers, how can anyone claim to genuinely know?

I agree that if there is a God who wants us to believe it exists then you'd expect it to provide verifiable evidence. The fact that no such verifiable evidence appears to exists suggests that either this proposed God doesn't exist or that this God is rather inept and incapable of providing verifiable evidence for its existence.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

One of those messengers did predict that certain things would happen on such and such dates...

Really? Which ones?

I'm familiar with lots of claims, but none can be verified post hoc. there is no way to verify the stories of such predictions...