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

[Sheldon]

At last.
You've admitted that not all cases of 'argumentum ad populum' are
"bare claims"

Not even remotely true...is English your first language, seriously?

 

[Trailblazer]

You seem to have missed or ignored the point in my post:

"Circular reasoning is an informal logical fallacy, it is a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion."

The premise that the bible is divinely inspired is as unevidenced as your assertion the whole bible is evidence for a deity, you can't prop up one unevidenced claim with a second unevidenced claim, as that would be, tah dah! "a circular reasoning fallacy", I really don't know how to simplify this anymore?

Your premise is not demonstrated as true, you even premised it with the word if, thus it does not supported your conclusion, because this is a circular reasoning fallacy.

I already said that the premise "the Bible is divinely inspired" cannot ever be proven to be true, but that does not mean that I cannot 'believe' the Bible is evidence for a deity,.

Previously I said that beliefs are not automatically false simply because they are based upon circular reasoning, that is what flies right over the heads of atheists. This is all that matters, whether the Bible was divinely inspired or not, not whether an argument is circular. Harping on the fact that an argument is circular is just a way to deflect from the important point at hand so it is a red herring.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

So here are some perfectly valid circular arguments:

If the premise the Bible is divinely inspired is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Similarly, if the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Of course, since I can never prove that the Bible is divinely inspired is true and I can never prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists.

And that is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

The premise that the bible is divinely inspired is as unevidenced as your assertion the whole bible is evidence for a deity, you can't prop up one unevidenced claim with a second unevidenced claim, as that would be, tah dah! "a circular reasoning fallacy", I really don't know how to simplify this anymore?

I am making no claim, I simply have a belief. I cannot claim that the whole bible is evidence for a deity because I cannot prove that. It is a belief, nothing more.

Your premise is not demonstrated as true, you even premised it with the word if, thus it does not supported your conclusion, because this is a circular reasoning fallacy.

Apparently what you STILL do not understand is that I am not making a logical argument in an attempt to prove anything. I was only speaking hypothetically. If the premise that the Bible is evidence for God could ever be proven to be true then we could logically conclude that God exists, but that premise cannot be proven true so a logical argument cannot be used to prove that God exists. How many times do I have to say this?

 

[CG Didymus]

Conclusion

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...

From your link...

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.​

So, Baha'is can pretty much believe whatever they want to about the Bible and the NT. Anything from it's a "sure" guide to it's a bunch of fictional stories? I still think that Baha'is use verses in the Bible and in other Scriptures of the other religions only when it suits them. And then, essentially, ignore the rest. That's part of the reason why I don't believe in progressive revelation. There should be more continuity and more consistency between the Scriptures of the different religion, if, in fact, they were from the same source, the supposed, one true God.

There is so very little that makes the Bible anything more than a book about the Jews. It is their Scriptures about what they believe about their God. It makes no connection to any previous religion being true or in any way a progression to their religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And as I have said repeatedly on this thread, that kind of evidence for God does not exist,

Your thread title suggested to me that this thread was about what would be enough evidence, not about what sort of evidence there actually is.

but that does not mean that God does not exist.

It's certainly evidence that God does not exist.

God either exists or not. Evidence is not what makes God exist. God could exist and provide no evidence at all, but such is not that case, because God provided His Messengers as evidence.

Your "Messengers" are irrelevant.

Things that exist and have real effects in the physical universe leave empirical evidence for their existence.

If we're trying to decide if, say, passenger pigeons still exist, it wouldn't matter at all if someone - like your "Messengers" came forward and said "a passenger pigeon came to me in a vision and said they're all fine and not extinct after all." If they're right, then there would still be some empirical sign that the pigeons exist: if not a live bird, then at least some footprints, nests, pigeon poop, whatever.

A God that leaves no empirical evidence is a God that does not have any effect - as far as we can tell, anyhow - on the physical universe. This sort of God is an irrelevant God, and belief in such a God can't be justified rationally.

 

[Sheldon]

I already said that the premise "the Bible is divinely inspired" cannot ever be proven to be true, but that does not mean that I cannot 'believe' the Bible is evidence for a deity,.

Straw man, and you said "the whole bible is evidence for a deity", yet can't offer even one quote to support this when asked.

So here are some perfectly valid circular arguments:

If the premise the Bible is divinely inspired is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

It's a vapid tautology, and a circular reasoning fallacy since your premise is as unevidenced as your conclusion, and sticking the word if in there, doesn't change this, it just illustrates the fact.

Apparently what you STILL do not understand is that I am not making a logical argument in an attempt to prove anything.

You're not making a logical argument at all, and you made a very specific claim, that the "whole bible is evidence of a deity" there is nothing hypothetical in that claim, and then you introduced your circular reasoning fallacy.

And that is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.

You haven't used a logical argument, that was the point.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, Baha'is can pretty much believe whatever they want to about the Bible and the NT. Anything from it's a "sure" guide to it's a bunch of fictional stories?

Yes, we can do that because we have free will to choose what to believe..

I still think that Baha'is use verses in the Bible and in other Scriptures of the other religions only when it suits them. And then, essentially, ignore the rest.

We don't need the Bible for anything because we have a new Revelation from God. We can ignore anything we want to ignore because the Bible is not needed anymore.

There is so very little that makes the Bible anything more than a book about the Jews. It is their Scriptures about what they believe about their God. It makes no connection to any previous religion being true or in any way a progression to their religion.

The Old Testament is about the Jews but the New Testament is about Jesus.
No, the Bible makes no connection to any previous religion being true or in any way a progression to their religion.
Progressive Revelation was not revealed in Scriptures until the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, even though it has always existed.

 

[Sheldon]

I am making no claim,

That's not true, you made at least two claims, here they are verbatim.

#1

The whole Bible is evidence of a deity.

#2

If the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

The second one was the circular reasoning fallacy you offered as evidence for the first claim. Which you tried to defend, and are now claiming was merely a hypothetical.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think some of the atheists here do have a clue as to how believers formulate their beliefs though. Understanding how people formulate beliefs might tell us something about human nature, and why people believe weird things.

This is so important. Believers think they have good reason to believe in their religions. Atheists tell them where their beliefs fall short of being based on real, objective facts.

But what is the purpose of these religions? In Judaism is it to follow laws and rules of morality? That were given by a God that the people are told is real. And the proof is all the things this God did in the stories. With Christianity it to be saved from going to hell and to get to go to heaven? Along with following rules and moral codes that were given by a God? Islam and the Baha'i Faith? New rules, new ritual and practices.

Does there need to be an invisible God that sends these rules and threatens people with harm if they don't obey the rules? Yes, because, if believed, then people are going to fear this invisible God and feel guilty for breaking some of the rules. But... does that make that invisible God real? Or is all that is needed is to just get people to believe that God is real?

And I have believed for a while. And it felt great. Feeling the love of God within and sharing that love with others. Only problem is... I felt that way no matter what religion I was in. Each religion believed different things, including different things about God. That's why I think it not necessarily that the religion was true or that God was real, but that I believed. And while I believed... that religion worked and felt real.

And because it feels real and sounds real, that while a person is into that religion, they will believe all the "weird" things and not question them. Like for a Christian... believing that Jesus resurrected into a flesh and bone body that could appear and disappear into the clouds. For Baha'is.... that their prophet is the fulfillment of all the major religions. I don't see it, but they do. Is it that I'm blind to the obvious truth, or is it them looking at it with their make everything rosy Baha'i glasses? That makes all prophecies of every major religion point to their prophet being the promised one.

It's all how people want to see it. It will make sense to them. And their religion will work, for the most part, for them. But still, I have to respect the Atheists when they ask, "Do you have any objective proof that your God is real?"

 

[Trailblazer]

Your thread title suggested to me that this thread was about what would be enough evidence, not about what sort of evidence there actually is.

I asked what would be evidence if God existed. I meant specifically, what would be the evidence.

I said:
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?

It's certainly evidence that God does not exist.

What is evidence that God does not exist?

Your "Messengers" are irrelevant.

Things that exist and have real effects in the physical universe leave empirical evidence for their existence.

The Messengers were not irrelevant. They had real effects in the physical universe and they left empirical evidence for their existence.

A God that leaves no empirical evidence is a God that does not have any effect - as far as we can tell, anyhow - on the physical universe. This sort of God is an irrelevant God, and belief in such a God can't be justified rationally.

But God did leave evidence and that evidence was the Messengers.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Things that exist and have real effects in the physical universe leave empirical evidence for their existence..

Yes they do.
..just because you are too blind to see them, doesn't mean that they are not there.

 

[Trailblazer]

Straw man, and you said "the whole bible is evidence for a deity", yet can't offer even one quote to support this when asked.

How would one quote support that the whole Bible is evidence for a deity?

You're not making a logical argument at all,

I was not trying to make a logical argument. How many times do I have to repeat this?

and you made a very specific claim, that the "whole bible is evidence of a deity" there is nothing hypothetical in that claim, and then you introduced your circular reasoning fallacy.

I made no claim, I only stated a belief. I believe that the "whole bible is evidence of a deity."

You haven't used a logical argument, that was the point.

I was not trying to use a logical argument, that way MY point.
There is no logical argument that can prove there is a deity. Nothing could be more ludicrous.
People either SEE the evidence for the deity or they do not. It is as simple as that.

 

[CG Didymus]

That's not true, you made at least two claims, here they are verbatim.

#1 The whole Bible is evidence of a deity.

#2 If the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

The second one was the circular reasoning fallacy you offered as evidence for the first claim. Which you tried to defend, and are now claiming was merely a hypothetical.

Agreed. And then Baha'is don't necessarily need to believe in the Bible anyway... actually that might not be true... I think they have to "say" they believe in the Bible, then ignore it if they want to.

that does not mean that I cannot 'believe' the Bible is evidence for a deity,.

Do you believe that it is evidence? If so, why? Because your religion tells you to? Or because you've read it and studied it and found things in it that are evidence for God? Like maybe... God smote those evil little %&#'s for making fun of the bald-headed prophet. That is based on a true Bible story. But is it evidence of a God, or evidence that people were just making up stories? I think you and I kind of agree. The stories in the Bible about God are fictional. If so, then how can a fictional story be evidence?

And even Baha'is that have a stronger belief in the Bible... if they believe the stories are metaphorical, and not literal, how can it be evidence that God is real? The stories are still fictional. The Atheists are with you. They believe the stories are fictional too. They just include the main character in those fictional stories to be fictional also.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I asked what would be evidence if God existed. I meant specifically, what would be the evidence.


I said:
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?

And I think I answered your question: we'd get it through observation and measurement... direct or indirect.

What is evidence that God does not exist?

A lack of empirical evidence for God is evidence that God does not exist.

The Messengers were not irrelevant. They had real effects in the physical universe and they left empirical evidence for their existence.

Good for them. Empirical evidence for the existence of a person is not empirical evidence for the existence of a god.

But God did leave evidence and that evidence was the Messengers.

... which wouldn't be empirical evidence even if true.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes they do.
..just because you are too blind to see them, doesn't mean that they are not there.

Too easy to say "you're too blind". Christians can say it to you. "Oh, Jesus is the only way. He is the Savior. Your religion is false. You are being deceived and are blind to the truth." How many times have you heard that?

Then Baha'is can do it to you also. "Oh, the Promised One has come. Did you but know it. Your eyes are veiled from his effulgent glory. Turn you face to the light and open your spiritual eyes and not let the clouds of delusion blind you from this most great truth."

But I agree... if a person wants to see God, or to find truth in any religion, I'm sure they will find God and that truth. Problem is... Anybody can and does find their version of God and their religious truth in several different religions. Then what? They argue with each other why their truth and their God is more real and truer than the other persons. And it's all based the interpretations of a few words written down in a book. A book that is believed to be true.

Atheists might be blind. Or religious people might be seeing and believing what they want to see.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you said "the whole bible is evidence for a deity", yet can't offer even one quote to support this when asked..

What is your intention by this statement?
Is life all some kind of joke to you?

You haven't told me who you think the Jesus mentioned in the Bible is.
Are you suggesting that Christianity spread due to so many gullible people in his time?
Of course, you are so much 'smarter' than all those people.
They couldn't construct non-answers as you do.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Too easy to say "you're too blind". Christians can say it to you. "Oh, Jesus is the only way. He is the Savior. Your religion is false.

That is way too specific.
What is this empirical evidence that I speak of?

Well, we see the results of Jesus and Muhammad in the civilisations that have sprung from their existence.
They are significant to this day.

There is no need for "seeing G-d", or G-d pretending to be a person and shouting from a loudhailer in the sky, and so on.

It is quite simple really.
A person who wishes to deny, will deny. It makes little difference what miracles are performed, they will always find a reason not to believe.

But I agree... if a person wants to see God, or to find truth in any religion, I'm sure they will find God and that truth. Problem is... Anybody can and does find their version of God and their religious truth in several different religions. Then what? They argue with each other why their truth and their God is more real and truer than the other persons. And it's all based the interpretations of a few words written down in a book. A book that is believed to be true.

Some things are fundamenal.
..while others are often minor details.

The main requirement for finding truth is sincerity.
We are all on a spiritual journey.
Not one of us has absolute knowledge of the nature of G-d.
..neither do we need to have, in order to follow guidance.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you believe that it is evidence? If so, why? Because your religion tells you to? Or because you've read it and studied it and found things in it that are evidence for God?

I believe that the Bible is evidence because that is a Baha'i belief. Nobody tells me to do anything.

The stories in the Bible about God are fictional. If so, then how can a fictional story be evidence?

That is not the part of the Bible that is evidence so maybe I should not have said that the whole Bible is evidence.

And even Baha'is that have a stronger belief in the Bible... if they believe the stories are metaphorical, and not literal, how can it be evidence that God is real? The stories are still fictional.

The stories are not the evidence, the Messengers that appear in the Bible are the evidence that God exists, even though not al the stories about those Messengers are literally true.

 

[CG Didymus]

But God did leave evidence and that evidence was the Messengers.

... which wouldn't be empirical evidence even if true.

Trailblazer, how about the false messengers of God? What are they evidence of? That the claim is easy to make?

But then you have the problem of having what Baha'is believe is a true messenger, Jesus, but the religion that developed from his teachings, Baha'is believe are false, the trinitarian Christians. Which includes the Catholic Church and a lot of Protestant Churches. So, what is that evidence of?

So, we have the NT that Baha'is don't take as having the exact words of Jesus, and then believing that some of the stories in it are not literally true. Then his followers interpreted things in the NT to come to the conclusion that Jesus must be God... along with The Father and Holy Spirit. Sounds like evidence for people adding to and making up stories about the "messenger" of God. Can we trust what they wrote as evidence?

Maybe you can claim it for Baha'u'llah, but still, other than Baha'is, his person, his mission and his writings weren't things that an Atheist would accept as evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I think I answered your question: we'd get it through observation and measurement... direct or indirect.

God is not a material thing that exists in this world so there can be no observation or measurement.

A lack of empirical evidence for God is evidence that God does not exist.

That is absolutely false since there can never be empirical evidence of a Spirit Being.
However, there is other kinds of evidence (see below).
To expect a kind of evidence that can never be procured is unreasonable.

Good for them. Empirical evidence for the existence of a person is not empirical evidence for the existence of a god.

It certainly is evidence, if the person represents God.

... which wouldn't be empirical evidence even if true.

Empirical evidence is not the ONLY kind of evidence.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them