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

[Trailblazer]

And you know this how?

Parenthetically, it's hard to imagine a non-existent thing, that IS measurable.

Only material things are measurable. God is not a material thing so God is not measurable.
It's hard to imagine a non-material thing that IS measurable.

I know God is immaterial because of scriptures, which are the only way anyone can know anything about God..

 

[rational experiences]

When human theories science never existed.

Just a group occult theist brotherhood of Bullie's who gave self the human permission. And used murder as threat to family to be allowed to practice.

Sciences origins in human life.

So are you first correct scientist human? The I am a theist?

No. Not ever.

So Christian advice was from old testimonials advice when science destroyed genesis human DNA by water eviction abduction sacrifice. Our living spirit?

Yes.

Hence past human spiritual aware teachings totally ignored caused life attack sacrifice again?

Yes.

Was known

Were we then living the dark ages of irradiated men's brains minds portraying behaviours beliefs totally against healer medical doctor biological teachings? Old reasons known?

Yes

Were they Christians?

Yes.

Is the Baha'i medical healer answer. Updated advice don't let the destroyer theist rebuild by reemerging maths the temple in Jerusalem.

Bad behaviours science caused returned irradiation attacks. Mind lost.

Science temple. Pyramid circuit.

Was murdered for his challenge spiritual humanity versus Satanism science. Causes and taught natural historic events. Known agreed in the times before!

Why they don't talk about Satanism.

What about you Christians in science?

Spirituality owns no personal life status as a given teacher advice....says I am still learning myself. Is never an egotist as the advisor.

Science says I use a fixed stated belief maths. Never learns as he invented the thesis maths science as a man men's agreement. The exact taught reason. Wanted to.

Bad behaviours lived notated. Cruel inhumane false beliefs enacted upon. Lost sense morality and medical advice. Seen in the strange practice no herbal remedies allowed.

 

[Sheldon]

Only material things are measurable.

Also only extant things.

God is not a material thing so God is not measurable.

Two more claims, zero more evidence.

I know God is immaterial because of scriptures, which are the only way anyone can know anything about God..

So what biblical knowledge can you demonstrate, that evidences any deity?

 

[Trailblazer]

So what biblical knowledge can you demonstrate, that evidences any deity?

The whole Bible is evidence of a deity.

 

[Sheldon]

The whole Bible is evidence of a deity.

Care to give an example? Only that claim is pretty vague, and extremely dubious.

 

[lukethethird]

The whole Bible is evidence of a deity.

The Bible is evidence of a work of literature.

 

[Trailblazer]

Care to give an example? Only that claim is pretty vague, and extremely dubious.

I believe that the Bible is God's testimony although it came through men. Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible is God's greatest testimony to His creatures, but did not explain exactly what that means, and we are free to hold our own opinions. Below are some Baha'i positions on the Bible, which I share.

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Below is the Baha'i position on the Bible according to the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, Shoghi Effendi:

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet.

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Regarding the stories in the Bible, the following are more letters from Shoghi Efffendi about the Bible:

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)

Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean.
(31 January 1955 to an individual believer)

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[Sheldon]

I believe that the Bible is God's testimony although it came through men. Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible is God's greatest testimony to His creatures, but did not explain exactly what that means, and we are free to hold our own opinions. Below are some Baha'i positions on the Bible, which I share.

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Below is the Baha'i position on the Bible according to the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, Shoghi Effendi:

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet.

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Regarding the stories in the Bible, the following are more letters from Shoghi Efffendi about the Bible:

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)

Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean.
(31 January 1955 to an individual believer)

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Sorry but I don't see anything in there demonstrating that any part of the bible is evidence for a deity, as you claimed?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The whole Bible is evidence of a deity.

Not to those skilled in evaluating evidence, which is a vital aspect of critical thinking, the other main skill being able to construct sound arguments and to be able to evaluate the arguments of others for fallacies or soundness. The idea is to admit no false ideas into one head, and there is a protocol for doing that properly.

Evidence is facts that make a proposition more or less likely (evidence for and evidence against). The logical possibilities are that either there exist a god or gods, or there does not. To be evidence for a god, the evidence must make it more likely that a god exists. You began the thread asking what this would be. One possibility would be irreducible complexity in biological systems, which could only be explained by an intelligent designer, and which need not be a god, so not proof of a god, but a finding making that possibility more likely.

It would not be words that could be written by a man. In fact, as I've commented before, the more times a god that it's claimed exists is said to chose to do what would be imposed on a godless universe, the less likely that there is a god. In a godless universe, we expect to find to find nothing on earth not easily written by human beings, like all holy books.

Do you remember the analogy using coin flips? Is the coin fair, or perfectly weighted to come up tails every time? Can we decide by flipping? If heads comes up at all, the coin wasn't perfectly weighted to come up tails every time. Suppose it comes up tails five times in a row. Can we decide? No. How about 50? Well, that's pretty unusual if it is a fair coin. How about 500? We still haven't proved that the coin is loaded, but we have a lot of evidence that it is, beyond a reasonable doubt, and the possibility of the coin being loaded goes up with each flip of tails.

So how does this relate to scripture, and evidence for a god? Most of the gods we hear about are said to prefer to do what would happen if there were no god at all. Why are we not what a god wants us to be? He gave us free will (tails). Why? Because he want to be believed by faith (tails). Isn't that the only way to believe in something nonexistent, something with no evidence better than a book that men could have written without divine guidance? That's how God wants it (tails). Why doesn't this god interact with us each directly? It's not what he wants to do (tails). How can I come to know this god? You have to stop asking for evidence and just open your heart (tails).

The words you point to as evidence of a god are just another tails to me and everybody else not convinced that they reveal a divine author's influence, which by itself doesn't tell us much, but when the coming just keeps coming up tails, eventually, it's time to stop betting on heads, meaning that the book is actually evidence against a god, just as every flip of tails is a little bit more evidence for a loaded coin.

That's how people skilled at interpreting evidence interpret scripture, why they don't consider it evidence for a god, and why it doesn't convince them. Now I know you believe that all opinions are equal, but you also know that I don't. And I know that you consider it arrogant to call one opinion correct and another wrong, but it's not. It's just the way the world is. It is possible to know things and know that they are correct even if others cannot see that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not to those skilled in evaluating evidence, which is a vital aspect of critical thinking, the other main skill being able to construct sound arguments and to be able to evaluate the arguments of others for fallacies or soundness. The idea is to admit no false ideas into one head, and there is a protocol for doing that properly.

Evidence is facts that make a proposition more or less likely (evidence for and evidence against). The logical possibilities are that either there exist a god or gods, or there does not. To be evidence for a god, the evidence must make it more likely that a god exists. You began the thread asking what this would be. One possibility would be irreducible complexity in biological systems, which could only be explained by an intelligent designer, and which need not be a god, so not proof of a god, but a finding making that possibility more likely.

It would not be words that could be written by a man. In fact, as I've commented before, the more times a god that it's claimed exists is said to chose to do what would be imposed on a godless universe, the less likely that there is a god. In a godless universe, we expect to find to find nothing on earth not easily written by human beings, like all holy books.

Do you remember the analogy using coin flips? Is the coin fair, or perfectly weighted to come up tails every time? Can we decide by flipping? If heads comes up at all, the coin wasn't perfectly weighted to come up tails every time. Suppose it comes up tails five times in a row. Can we decide? No. How about 50? Well, that's pretty unusual if it is a fair coin. How about 500? We still haven't proved that the coin is loaded, but we have a lot of evidence that it is, beyond a reasonable doubt, and the possibility of the coin being loaded goes up with each flip of tails.

So how does this relate to scripture, and evidence for a god? Most of the gods we hear about are said to prefer to do what would happen if there were no god at all. Why are we not what a god wants us to be? He gave us free will (tails). Why? Because he want to be believed by faith (tails). Isn't that the only way to believe in something nonexistent, something with no evidence better than a book that men could have written without divine guidance? That's how God wants it (tails). Why doesn't this god interact with us each directly? It's not what he wants to do (tails). How can I come to know this god? You have to stop asking for evidence and just open your heart (tails).

The words you point to as evidence of a god are just another tails to me and everybody else not convinced that they reveal a divine author's influence, which by itself doesn't tell us much, but when the coming just keeps coming up tails, eventually, it's time to stop betting on heads, meaning that the book is actually evidence against a god, just as every flip of tails is a little bit more evidence for a loaded coin.

That's how people skilled at interpreting evidence interpret scripture, why they don't consider it evidence for a god, and why it doesn't convince them. Now I know you believe that all opinions are equal, but you also know that I don't. And I know that you consider it arrogant to call one opinion correct and another wrong, but it's not. It's just the way the world is. It is possible to know things and know that they are correct even if others cannot see that.

You have convinced yourself that the Bible is not evidence for God based upon what you would expect to see if God had something to do with the writing of the Bible.

You have convinced yourself that God does not exist based upon what you would expect to see if God existed.

That is no different from what I have been doing on my new thread Why do believers love God?

questioning how God could be loving given what I would expect to see if God was loving. The difference is that I do not say I know that God is not loving, I say I don’t necessarily believe that God is loving, because what I see in this world does not indicate that to me.

It would not be words that could be written by a man.

The words were written by men, but that does not mean they were not inspired by God. That cannot be proven one way or another.

In fact, as I've commented before, the more times a god that it's claimed exists is said to chose to do what would be imposed on a godless universe, the less likely that there is a god.

What you would expect to see in a godless universe.

In a godless universe, we expect to find to find nothing on earth not easily written by human beings, like all holy books.

In a godless universe, you would expect to find to find nothing on earth not easily written by human beings, like all holy books.

So how does this relate to scripture, and evidence for a god? Most of the gods we hear about are said to prefer to do what would happen if there were no god at all.

What you would expect to happen if there were no God at all.

Why are we not what a god wants us to be? He gave us free will (tails). Why? Because he want to be believed by faith (tails). Isn't that the only way to believe in something nonexistent, something with no evidence better than a book that men could have written without divine guidance? That's how God wants it (tails). Why doesn't this god interact with us each directly? It's not what he wants to do (tails). How can I come to know this god? You have to stop asking for evidence and just open your heart (tails).

Why are we not what God wants us to be? Because God gave us free will to choose between good and evil. God wants to be believed by faith and evidence; by faith because that is the only way to believe in what cannot be seen, by evidence because it would not be just for God to expect to be believed in if there was no evidence, and I am not referring only to the Bible. That's how God wants it. Why doesn't this god interact with us each directly? It's not what he wants to do and it is completely unnecessary, since God has chosen to send Messengers who can interact with us directly. How can anyone come to know this God? They have to look at the only evidence that God has provided, the Messengers of God.

That's how people skilled at interpreting evidence interpret scripture, why they don't consider it evidence for a god, and why it doesn't convince them. Now I know you believe that all opinions are equal, but you also know that I don't. And I know that you consider it arrogant to call one opinion correct and another wrong, but it's not. It's just the way the world is. It is possible to know things and know that they are correct even if others cannot see that.

I fully agree. Some people are skilled at interpreting evidence, includiing scripture, and that is why they see it as evidence for God. It's just the way the world is. It is possible to know things and know that they are correct even if most others cannot see that. That is why Jesus said:

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

And why Baha'u'llah wrote:

“The Book of God is wide open, and His Word is summoning mankind unto Him. No more than a mere handful, however, hath been found willing to cleave to His Cause, or to become the instruments for its promotion. These few have been endued with the Divine Elixir that can, alone, transmute into purest gold the dross of the world, and have been empowered to administer the infallible remedy for all the ills that afflict the children of men. No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 183

 

[Sheldon]

You have convinced yourself that the Bible is not evidence for God

No that's not true, and several posters, myself included have asked you demonstrate any part of the bible you think evidences a deity, and you have offered nothing beyond bare claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry but I don't see anything in there demonstrating that any part of the bible is evidence for a deity, as you claimed?

We don't all see what others see, as I just explained in my post above.

 

[Trailblazer]

No that's not true, and several posters, myself included have asked you demonstrate any part of the bible you think evidences a deity, and you have offered nothing beyond bare claims.

There is no way that can be demonstrated, you either see it as evidence or you do not.

 

[Sheldon]

We don't all see what others see, as I just explained in my post above.

No you just made a string of unevidenced claims, many of them had nothing to do with the bible. You offered no evidence from the bible for any deity.

 

[Sheldon]

There is no way that can be demonstrated, you either see it as evidence or you do not.

No, it either contains evidence for a deity or it does not. You can claim the Harry Potter novels are evidence of wizardry, that doesn't make my objection my fault. What you are doing here yet again, is offering a known logical fallacy, called a no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Trailblazer]

No you just made a string of unevidenced claims, many of them had nothing to do with the bible.

What were those claims?

You offered no evidence from the bible for any deity.

The Bible is not proof that there is a deity, but it is evidence if one believes it is divinely inspired.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, it either contains evidence for a deity or it does not.

I believe it does but I cannot prove that.

 

[Sheldon]

What were those claims?

The Bible is not proof that there is a deity, but it is evidence if one believes it is divinely inspired.

The claims were the ones in your post.

So it is not evidence then, that was just a presupposition involving a circular reasoning fallacy. If you believe a deity inspired the bible, then you believe the bible was divinely inspired and so is evidence, wickedly simple, but entirely circular.

 

[osgart]

The trouble with evidence is it can be interpreted in many different ways. I don't believe human logic is infallible, nor is it the ultimate standard of truth. Rationality, and reason in human terms probably has limits.

If someone is looking for God they would be seeking proof from evidence. Looking for God's physical signature in nature isn't going to be the way to discover God. So science isn't going to be the method of finding God.

How would anyone human uncover a divine plan, or even uncover what divinity means unless they humble themselves to the task and open themselves up to such a possibility, and importance?

No one can discover an unknown unknown with logic alone. I suppose God would not reveal God's self to those who have no regard, nor desire to know God's existence.

Look at all the disagreements: no free will, no self, no objective morality, nothing but subjectivity and preferences, if it can't be observed it don't exist, and everything is explainable by physics. All this is over confidence.

Humanity developed logic, science, and objectivity. And with it every problem looks like a nail in need of a hammer. But there are other realities discoverable from within.

The main question with God is, why do we exist this way and for what greater purpose does it serve? That's my main objection to the existence of God. Some people never have a chance at life, and somehow God exists.

 

[Sheldon]

The trouble with evidence is it can be interpreted in many different ways.

All the more reason to be critical of claims, and set a high standard for objective evidence.

I don't believe human logic is infallible, nor is it the ultimate standard of truth. Rationality, and reason in human terms probably has limits.

Who has ever claimed otherwise? that doesn't change the fact that irrational claims are far more likely to be incorrect.

If someone is looking for God they would be seeking proof from evidence.

What you have just described is inherent bias.

Looking for God's physical signature in nature isn't going to be the way to discover God. So science isn't going to be the method of finding God.

Well that would also be true of any non existent thing. So not a promising start.

How would anyone human uncover a divine plan, or even uncover what divinity means unless they humble themselves to the task and open themselves up to such a possibility, and importance?

This assumes there is anything to find, that would need to be demonstrated, not just assumed.

No one can discover an unknown unknown with logic alone. I suppose God would not reveal God's self to those who have no regard, nor desire to know God's existence.

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy. You are making claims to knowledge, yet offering nothing in support of those claims.

Look at all the disagreements: no objective morality, nothing but subjectivity and preferences, if it can't be observed it don't exist, and everything is explainable by physics. All this is over confidence.

Morality is subjective, the other two claims are both straw man fallacies, as I don't know anyone who makes those claims, but even if someone does, it doesn't remotely evidence a deity.