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

[joelr]

It is not possible to "convince" everybody.
Please answer the OP..
What would be evidence of God’s existence?

Really, are their people who don't think the sun is real and is a star? Are there people who don't believe in thunderstorms who live in the midwest? Are there people who live in cities who don't believe cars and tall buildings are real? What an odd question?

I don't know exactly what would be evidence. Here is a start, stop using the same method (revelations to a person and only a specific group of people) that every religion ever uses. Then don't use stories that are already used in older religions, prophecies exactly as vague that convince no one outside the religion, have your followers resort to ridiculous apologetics (that often change) that can easily be debunked as psuedo-science or make up historical lies in apologetics to make any sort of case for a myth to be thought of as real, have all sorts of miraculous appearances in the myths but then never show up and more apologetics are made up for that. Stop giving revelations of exactly the same science that people already knew at the time, same philosophy, same laws.
Why don't you believe Krishna, Innanna, Thor, or any other modern religion, because there is no evidence. Well your religion is the same. You just decided to ignore that fact.

A God that could give revelations could speak to every person at once, at any time, answer any question and give any physical demonstration. How you would rule out the difference between an actual God or an alien race that was so advanced it seemed like they could do anything, I don't know?

 

[night912]

But God never says you will wear a red shirt or any particular color shirt, that is what you are NOT understanding. God allows you to choose what color shirt you want to wear. God knows what color shirt you will wear because God is all-knowing, but God's knowledge does not CAUSE you to pick any particular shirt.

Of course God will not say to you that you will wear a certain color shirt, because it's not necessary. It's exactly the same as how it's not necessary for the author to tell the character of the story he created, to wear a certain color shirt. The author will simply have the character wear the color that he determine.

The ONLY reason you will wear the color shirt that God knows you will wear is because God knows what color shirt you will wear.

Now you're getting it. The reason why you're wearing that color is not because you chose that color, instead it's because of God's knowledge that determined the which color you will be wearing.

If you had chosen to wear another color shirt God would have known you were going to wear that color shirt.

There's no "if's" when it comes to 100% certainty.

 

[night912]

It is not possible to "convince" everybody.
Please answer the OP..
What would be evidence of God’s existence?

So you are asking someone a question in which you have already determined as to what the answer to that question is.

 

[joelr]

The big deal about the Baha'i Faith was that supposedly applying their principles would lead to peace and harmony. Baha'u'llah was supposed to be the "great" physician that had the remedy for the world's ills. Does he? Do people mistrust those that claim to be from God so much that they neglect or ignore the guy teachings? Or, are those teachings just not that impressive?

To me, once I found out that they forbade drugs, alcohol, and sex, outside of marriage... they expected nations to disarm and only keep a small army, I had my doubts it would have universal acceptance. And, if it did get accepted, and did gain control to where it could apply it teachings and laws, how was it going to enforce them? And, most important, what would they do with the Rastafarians? Tell them, "No, no, no... You can't smoke it no more..."?

The teachings are not impressive. The science is dead wrong, no new philosophy and it's largely worship literature. No religion is the answer. As long as people buy into "revelations" and "messengers" (based on terrible evidence) there will be updates in religions or brand new religions and some may be far more radical than others. We have to get past that. A God didn't give secret messages to Abraham, Joseph Smith, the guy in New Zeland right now who claims to be Jesus, or any other of the hundreds of revelatory cults. It's a con.
The Bahai writer clearly took Islam and a few others and took from that as his core ideas.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If God knows I will do something, I can't possibly do anything different, can I?

How many times do I need to explain this?

You aren't explaining anything..
You are simply repeating a "trick" statement again and again.
..and refusing to engage in a logical analysis of it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..we can't give atheists what they want since believing in God is a belief and not something science will be able to prove for an other million years or so

True..
..and so is "If I can only ever do what God has foreseen me do, then there is no choice for me to make" just a belief.

It doesn't matter what evidence one comes up with to disprove that belief [ free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive ],
many atheists will not acknowledge it.

So we get this continual .. I'm right, no I'm right, no can't you see, I'm right...

..which only goes to show. It's not only about "God being a belief", it is much more..

ONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS RIGHT AND CAN BE
PROVED SCIENTIFICALLY.

They are incompatible. OR
They are compatible

I have shown the scientific proof, but people will not accept the evidence.
..and there we have it. It is about denial, rather than science.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know exactly what would be evidence. Here is a start, stop using the same method (revelations to a person and only a specific group of people) that every religion ever uses. Then don't use stories that are already used in older religions, prophecies exactly as vague that convince no one outside the religion, have your followers resort to ridiculous apologetics (that often change) that can easily be debunked as psuedo-science or make up historical lies in apologetics to make any sort of case for a myth to be thought of as real, have all sorts of miraculous appearances in the myths but then never show up and more apologetics are made up for that. Stop giving revelations of exactly the same science that people already knew at the time, same philosophy, same laws.
Why don't you believe Krishna, Innanna, Thor, or any other modern religion, because there is no evidence. Well your religion is the same. You just decided to ignore that fact.

I'm not ignoring anything.
I don't know, for sure, about religions that are much older than Judasim. They could originally have been 100% truth.
I think that religions evolve to be what they are .. including the Abrahamic faiths. Sikhism is a very good example of that.

A God that could give revelations could speak to every person at once, at any time, answer any question and give any physical demonstration.

That is correct.
It's clearly not necessary though .. at least, it is clear to me.
It is absolutely correct that because a majority of people believe in a particular religion, that that has little bearing on whether it is true or not.
However, that does NOT mean that we can not make some logical deductions from statistics.

If you think that belief in the Abrahamic God is pure superstition, for example, I would vehemently disagree.

 

[Sheldon]

Why doesn’t it matter what other choices we could have made?

Obviously because if a deity knew the one we will eventually make before we make it, then there are no other choices to be made.

 

[Sheldon]

God knows the choice we will ultimately make.

Before we make it? Then there are no other choices that is axiomatic.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Before we make it? Then there are no other choices that is axiomatic.

Dang you sound just like sheldon cooper Tbbt

 

[Sheldon]

God knows beforehand, the one choice you will ultimately make. How does it render all the choices that you COULD HAVE MADE before that that illusion?

If a deity knows (in your own words) the ONE CHOICE YOU WILL ULTIMATELY MAKE...then clearly there never were any other choices?

 

[Sheldon]

The hundred-dollar question is why you think that God knowing beforehand which choice we would make means we could not have made another choice.

Well unless one means something different to you than it does to me, I'm baffled you can't see the contradiction.

 

[Sheldon]

You tell me?

Physics suggests that the future has already happened - BBC Reel

I don't believe in any deity or deities, so that's a rather odd question.

 

[Sheldon]

Maybe it isn't a logical contradiction for a particularly smart agent to 'know' how you'll behave and for you to have free will.

Well that's not what is being claimed of course. Trailblazer is claiming a deity knows exactly which one choice I will make before I make it. That scenario would mean that only that choice was ultimately available.

 

[Sheldon]

No, the fact that God knew what choice we would ultimately make does not mean that we did not have other choices BEFORE we made the choice we decided to make.

Of course it does? I have the following choices A, B, or C.

You are claiming a deity knows which of those I will choose before I make the choice, thus I cannot choose either of the others.

 

[Sheldon]

True..
..and so is "If I can only ever do what God has foreseen me do, then there is no choice for me to make" just a belief.

It doesn't matter what evidence one comes up with to disprove that belief [ free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive ],
many atheists will not acknowledge it.

So we get this continual .. I'm right, no I'm right, no can't you see, I'm right...

..which only goes to show. It's not only about "God being a belief", it is much more..

ONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS RIGHT AND CAN BE
PROVED SCIENTIFICALLY.

They are incompatible. OR
They are compatible

I have shown the scientific proof, but people will not accept the evidence.
..and there we have it. It is about denial, rather than science.

I don't think evidence means what you think it means. The fact you say scientific proof, just shows you don't understand the methodology at all, proofs are used in logic and mathematics.

However please cite the worthy peer reviewed scientific journal that published your "scientific" evidence for any deity? When will you be claiming the Templeton prize by the way it's a million dollars after all? When can we expect the Nobel committee to announce you winning your Nobel prize?

You make me laugh fair play, why do people seriously think they can bluff that they have paradigm shifting scientific evidence, you have to laugh.

Nope nothing on the Al Jazeera website abut you evidencing a deity, or the Catholic Herald, or CNN, or Sky, or the BBC world news, this is very disconcerting?

 

[Sheldon]

The deity knows what choice you will make but the deity does not determine the choice you will make.

It doesn't matter, if a deity existed and knew what I was going to do before I did it, then I axiomatically cannot do otherwise than what it knows will happen.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't believe in any deity or deities, so that's a rather odd question.

Not really..

You said: So a deity doesn't know which choice I will ultimately make before I make it?

I showed you that Physics suggests that the future has "already happened" .. which means that is possible for a diety to know the future.

Do you believe in Einsteinian physics or not?
If so, do you argue that that means free-will is purely an illusion?
Many people do..

 

[Sheldon]

Anyone that reasons rationally would care.

I was thinking that exact same thing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

However please cite the worthy peer reviewed scientific journal that published your "scientific" evidence for any deity?

You have a poor memory and/or you have a difficulty in reading.

I have showed you the logical prrof that free-will and omniscience are not mutually exclusive, but you don't show me where I'm wrong.
I haev NOT attempted to prove that a diety exists .. you are in error.