Evidence

[Trailblazer]

Which is a good reason to conclude that God does not exist. It cannot be 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt', nor can it even be 'the preponderance of the evidence' because such evidence is excluded.

The evidence I have is evidence for me 'beyond any doubt' that God is guilty of existing.
To prove God exists by a preponderance of the evidence simply means to prove that "God exists" is more likely than not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will admit it. I'm also theistic but I have no actual evidence. I confess, I have only faith and no facts to provide to the curious world.

Does religious testimony count as "evidence"?

And it has been pointed out to the theists multiple times that it is fine to say " I believe ". It is when someone says "I have evidence" that they run into trouble.

And religious testimony would be an example of a claim, but your smiley tells me that you already knew that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Give an example of such evidence.

And no, whether the evidence is 'proper' has to be defined beforehand and not afterward.

Well, it that is the case you will *first* have to define what evidence is *proper* before I can give an example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence I have is evidence for me 'beyond any doubt' that God is guilty of existing.
To prove God exists by a preponderance of the evidence simply means to prove that "God exists" is more likely than not.

Then it is not really evidence. Evidence is not something that would convince just you. Evidence consists of observations or logic that would convince others. What you are describing is confirmation bias.

 

[Trailblazer]

And, in that case, it is also unreasonable and illogical to believe in such a being.

A being that chooses to not be demonstrable looks just like one that does not exist.

Only *in your opinion.*
In my opinion, it is reasonable and logical to believe in such a God that chooses to not be demonstrable since there is a logical reason why God so chooses.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your main argument seems to be that the notions of 'reasonable' and 'logical' are subjective and not objective. That is where we disagree.

They absolutely ARE subjective.
Just try to prove that what is reasonable and logical *to you* is also true as a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it that is the case you will *first* have to define what evidence is *proper* before I can give an example.

Sorry, but you do not like working definitions of evidence. Also part of the burden of proof of the person claiming to have evidence is an ability to define what supporting evidence is and what is mot.

If you cannot define evidence properly then you cannot know if you have any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only *in your opinion.*
In my opinion, it is reasonable and logical to believe in such a God that chooses to not be demonstrable since there is a logical reason why God so chooses.

No, that was not just an opinion. But you do say this quite often when you know that you are wrong.

 

[Valjean]

An absurdity.
50% of people in the world clearly do not think so.

Why an absurdity? Most of the world never even considers the question. Most aren't skilled at critical analysis or aware of the arguments even if they do.

There are numerous examples of poor design, mistakes, injustice and cruelty, so: not an absurdity; a legitimate question.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what kind of "evidence" does exist?

And we keep waiting for this evidence; and when some is offered we keep finding it logically erroneous or, false, or, as F1fan pointed out, based on unsupported premises.

Simply put, the evidence of God comes through the Revelations from God which comes through the Messengers of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They absolutely ARE subjective.
Just try to prove that what is reasonable and logical *to you* is also true as a fact.

Then that is a huge problem for you. Reliable evidence cannot be subjective. It has to be objective by definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why an absurdity? Most of the world never even considers the question. Most aren't skilled at critical analysis or aware of the arguments even if they do.

There are numerous examples of poor design, mistakes, injustice and cruelty, so, not an absurdity; a legitimate question.

50% was an F in just about any subject when I went to school. It is rather stunning that he thinks his god is a failure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simply put, the evidence of God comes through the Revelations from God which comes through the Messengers of God.

That tells us nothing. Is anyone that claims to be a Messenger from God a Messenger?

 

[Valjean]

There can never be any objective, empirical evidence if God since God can never be seen.
All humanity has ever had are the Messengers who claim to represent God. We either believe them or we do not.

We have empirical evidence for lots of things that can't be seen, but are well evidenced.
Are there any reasonable criteria for believing the messengers?

Only in your opinion do the believers have no evidence.
In our opinion we have evidence.

But it's either evidence or its not. How is this a matter of opinion?

 

[Trailblazer]

Those that choose not to be reasonable are, by definition, unreasonable.

There was certainly a time in history when it was possible to be reasonable and believe in a flat Earth. That is no longer the case.

There was certainly a time in history when it was possible to be reasonable and think that the Earth was the center of the universe. That is no longer the case.

It *may* be possible to believe in a deity and still be reasonable. But until a reasonable argument has been given for the existence of a deity, the belief is unreasonable.

I have yet to see such an argument.

No, it is not reasonable to think that the Earth is the center of the universe since it has been proven by science that it is not.

The problem with what you said regarding a reasonable argument for God is that you do not determine what is reasonable or unreasonable; all you can ever know is what seems reasonable or unreasonable to you.

Someday you and other atheists might get somewhere if you could drop all this reasonable vs. unreasonable and just look at the evidence that God has provided. Imo that is the reasonable thing to do.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just out of curiousity -- how on earth do you think you can know what God chooses if God chooses to reveal nothing -- not even what He chooses? Your "belief" on that issue is purely a product of your mind, and your mind alone.

God has revealed something, through Baha'u'llah. One thing Baha'u'llah wrote is that God does what He chooses to do. That implies that God does not do what God does not choose to do. Why would He, who could make Him?

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

From that passage coupled with logic I have concluded that God chooses not to prove that He exists, since we have no proof of God's existence.

Since God is all-powerful, if God chose to prove that He exists He could easily do so, so the fact that He has not done so means He chooses not to do so. It is as simple as that. Logic is such a wonderful thing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, if you say that anything can be evidence of anything, then everything is evidence of everything. But it isn't evidence that actually supports any conclusions or beliefs.

It seems to be a drastic lowering of standards of evidence to allow for the types of evidence you promote.

It is evidence *for me* because it supports my conclusions and beliefs about God.
It is not evidence *for you* because it does not support any conclusions or beliefs about God.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, good.

Now what reason do we have to believe them? Especially in matters like the existence of a deity?

The only reason you would believe in them is if you looked at the evidence that supports their claim to be a Messenger of God and determined they were telling the truth.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God has revealed something, through Baha'u'llah. One thing Baha'u'llah wrote is that God does what He chooses to do. That implies that God does not do what God does not choose to do. Why would He, who could make Him?

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

From that passage coupled with logic I have concluded that God chooses not to prove that He exists, since we have no proof of God's existence.

Since God is all-powerful, if God chose to prove that He exists He could easily do so, so the fact that He has not done so means He chooses not to do so. It is as simple as that. Logic is such a wonderful thing.

My goodness, I can't tell how much I wish you could see how little actual reasoning you bring to your argument. You seriously have no idea at all of what critical thinking is, nor even any idea of how your thought has been hijacked by truly unintelligible memes.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't see real evidence as a matter of opinion. think evidence is usually pretty concrete; objective, empirical, logical, hopefully testable.

Not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof.
Not all evidence is testable. Evidence for God is not testable in the sense that scientific evidence is testable. How do you test a God that is hidden?