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

[Tiberius]

This was not about something that cannot be explained, it was @Tiberius who said that he would take it as evidence for God if the Bible described knowledge that the people of the time could not possibly have:

Tiberius said:

In any case, my standard answer to that is this. If the Bible said something like:

"And the Earth moved in a great circle around the sun, held in place by the sun's mass. And the circle was not perfect, but was longer in one direction than the perpendicular, and the passage of the Earth swept out equal areas in equal times. And the sun shone with the light of its tiniest parts coming together."

I would indeed take it as evidence for God, because it describes knowledge that the people of the time could not possibly have.​

So that is why I said what I said about Baha'u'llah having knowledge that the people of the time could not possibly have.

Trailblazer said:

"So why wouldn't it be evidence for God if Baha'u'llah described knowledge that the people of His time could not possibly have had?"

I'd love to see what Mr B said that, like my example, is knowledge that people of the time could not possibly know.

 

[Tiberius]

Facts are objective, and people interpret what these facts mean subjectively

Whether or not the facts are significant, whether they mean that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be, is a subjective determination.

Yes, you literally just restated what I said in my first sentence. You did not actually address my point.

And Mr B's nature is an objective fact. Either he objectively was a messenger for God, or he was objectively NOT a messenger for God. And whatever it is, it is the same for everyone, regardless of their beliefs.

 

[Tiberius]

I did not imply criminal behavior. I only posted the definition of stalking. I did not say you were 'doing' what the definition says.

If Samtonga wasn't doing it, why did you even bring it up?

You've played this card many times, tried to sneakily accuse someone of doing something by posting a definition of it in a response to them, and then when they point out they have not done what you posted a definition of, you say, "Oh, I never said you were doing it."

Which leads us back to the question of why you posted the definition in the first place. Perhaps you felt that the thread just needed a definition of something for decoration?

 

[ppp]

When someone constantly criticizes and insults someone they are doing something wrong.
Cyberstalking: Prevention, Consequences, and Coping

I did not accuse anyone of a crime.

Cyberstalking is a federal crime, and in many states, a state crime.

 

[Trailblazer]

Cyberstalking is a federal crime, and in many states, a state crime.

I did not accuse anyone of cyberstalking. I only pointed out that it exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay then.

Do you agree that my post 5547 is evidence that I can turn into a firebreathing dragon?

No.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you suggesting that Samtonga43 is causing you to experience fear?

No, what would I have to be afraid of?

The vast majority of my posts on this site for many months now have been responses to you. And I certainly followed you to the "Prophecies of Mr B" thread.

However, you have not been giving me unwanted or obsessive attention, and you have not harassed me or monitored me. You have not responded to posts that were not posted to you, talking about me and agreeing with the people who criticized me.

You have criticized my beliefs and the way I came to them, but that is a completely different matter. Lots of people do that but I do not complain about that.

 

[ppp]

I did not accuse anyone of cyberstalking. I only pointed out that it exists.

I would find spending so much time and effort looking for loopholes in my own words to be both bleak and oppressive.

 

[Trailblazer]

I most certainly do NOT believe in predestination.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I posted that a long time ago. That was about the red shirt - blue shirt and as I recall you said you did not a choice as to which shirt you would wear so that is why I thought you were saying you have no free will and to me that equates to predestination.

 

[Trailblazer]

I would find spending so much time and effort looking for loopholes in my own words to be both bleak and oppressive.

I need no loopholes as I not accountable to anyone except God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I do NOT believe in predestination, and I do NOT believe in God.

I am pointing out the logical inconsistency between a God who knows the future with 100% accuracy and the ability for people to freely chose.

Yes, I remember that but I don't want to cover that ground again.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'd love to see what Mr B said that, like my example, is knowledge that people of the time could not possibly know.

I know things that He knew that people of that time did not know but I don't know if He had knowledge that people of the time could not 'possibly know.' Maybe my friend @Truthseeker can help me out since he knows much more about Baha'u'llah than I do.

 

[ppp]

I need no loopholes as I not accountable to anyone except God.

Bleak, oppressive, and lonely.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you literally just restated what I said in my first sentence. You did not actually address my point.

Tiberius said: Your interpretation of the body of facts could be flawed. You need some way of getting independent verification.

Did you mean independent verification that Baha'u'llah got messages from God? I already told you that is not verifiable.

And Mr B's nature is an objective fact. Either he objectively was a messenger for God, or he was objectively NOT a messenger for God. And whatever it is, it is the same for everyone, regardless of their beliefs.

If Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God His nature as a Messenger of God would be an objective truth but it would not be an objective fact since it can never be proven as a fact.

If Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God His nature as a Messenger of God would be true regardless of what anyone believed about it, so it would be true for everyone.

 

[Trailblazer]

If Samtonga wasn't doing it, why did you even bring it up?

Because I felt like I was being stalked and it has been going on for a long time.

You've played this card many times, tried to sneakily accuse someone of doing something by posting a definition of it in a response to them, and then when they point out they have not done what you posted a definition of, you say, "Oh, I never said you were doing it."

Which leads us back to the question of why you posted the definition in the first place. Perhaps you felt that the thread just needed a definition of something for decoration?

It was MY mistake in posting the definition. We all make mistakes since we are human. Only God is infallible.

The important thing is that we can recognize and admit our mistakes, not that we make them. I cannot undo what I did, I can only move forward.

I offered to delete posts that referred to stalking once she identifies them. I want nothing more to do with this and I consider it in the past unless it starts up again at which time I will decide how to handle it.

 

[Tiberius]

No.

Why not?

 

[Tiberius]

No, what would I have to be afraid of?

I dunno. You are the one who said he was stalking you (post 5764), and posted a definition that said that stalking would cause fear in the person being stalked (post 5811).

So, if he is stalking you, then you must be experiencing fear. If you are not experiencing fear, you can not claim he is stalking you, and I think you owe him a very profound apology.

However, you have not been giving me unwanted or obsessive attention, and you have not harassed me or monitored me. You have not responded to posts that were not posted to you, talking about me and agreeing with the people who criticized me.

As I've said, the vast majority of my posts here are in response to yours. Anyone looking at a history of my posts would certainly get the impression I am concentrating my attention on you.

Also, I have responded to posts written by you that you did not direct at me. And I have many times agreed with the people who have criticized you.

You have criticized my beliefs and the way I came to them, but that is a completely different matter. Lots of people do that but I do not complain about that.

I have also criticized what I see as a lack of scientific literacy on your part, as well as what I take to be very poor logic skills.

Yet, despite this, you do not see me as stalking you.

 

[Tiberius]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I posted that a long time ago. That was about the red shirt - blue shirt and as I recall you said you did not a choice as to which shirt you would wear so that is why I thought you were saying you have no free will and to me that equates to predestination.

No, my point was that IF there was a God who knows the future with 100% accuracy, then we can not have free choice.

1. God knows the future, we have no free choice, we can not be held accountable for what we do.
2. God does not know the future, humans can freely chose what they will do, and no one can see their choices with 100% accuracy ahead of time.

We can choose Option 1 or option 2, but choosing one eliminates all aspects of the other.

 

[Tiberius]

Tiberius said: Your interpretation of the body of facts could be flawed. You need some way of getting independent verification.

Did you mean independent verification that Baha'u'llah got messages from God? I already told you that is not verifiable.

So there's no way to tell one way or another.

If Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God His nature as a Messenger of God would be an objective truth but it would not be an objective fact since it can never be proven as a fact.

If Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God His nature as a Messenger of God would be true regardless of what anyone believed about it, so it would be true for everyone.

I would say that an objective fact is an objective fact, regardless of whether we have the ability to determine it or not.

Five hundred years ago, it was an objective fact that nuclear reactions were taking place within the sun, even if that knowledge couldn't be determined at that time.

In any case, your argument here all hinges on that very first word: IF.

 

[Tiberius]

Because I felt like I was being stalked and it has been going on for a long time.

So you felt like you were being stalked, but you do NOT feel that he was doing anything criminal, even though the definition you yourself posted stated that stalking was considered a crime in many places.

It was MY mistake in posting the definition. We all make mistakes since we are human. Only God is infallible.

The important thing is that we can recognize and admit our mistakes, not that we make them. I cannot undo what I did, I can only move forward.

I offered to delete posts that referred to stalking once she identifies them. I want nothing more to do with this and I consider it in the past unless it starts up again at which time I will decide how to handle it.

I have to point out that I find your apology here more than a little insincere, considering that you have done pretty much the exact same thing to me on several occasions: specifically, posted a definition of something, and then when I say that I have not done the thing you defined, you say, "I never said you had been doing it."

In short, you have demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that you are presently continuing.