Atheists: If God existed would God……

[F1fan]

What would constitute a strong probabilistic argument for you?

Well the claim has to be plausible. For example if Jim says he had a ham sandwich for lunch at face value it is a plausible claim. It's plausible since we all know ham sandwiches exist and people have them for lunch.

As for Gods, well...... They tend to be supernatural, and there is no known supernatural phenomenon existing. So any superficial claim about a God is by nature implausible. You need extraordinary evidence. Not claims. Not belief. Not messengers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, there aren't any other sources of knowledge about God.

First thing who is this God person? Why is he important to any one? Is it something that exists or it is a creature imagined by the uneducated Jewish shepherds in some Israeli desert more than two millenniums ago? What is the evidence for the information provided in these books which you call as 'scriptures'? You answer nothing and say that it has been 'asked and answered'. Who is this Elias person, and why should we believe in anything that he is supposed to have said? What proof has he given for what he is supposed to have said?

 

[epronovost]

What would constitute a strong probabilistic argument for you?

A probabilistic argument would require you to have data would be basically impossible in that specific case.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What could that possibly be?
For something to be reasonable it has to be supported by independently verifiable evidence and logically sound. At the very least to reasonably believe something without verifiable evidence, one must at the very least be able to make a strong probabilistic argument, but getting messages from God is basically a miracle and thus totally improbable, a rare, if not unique type of occurrence.

Did not their manifestation have a vision of a 'heavenly maiden' as he said? No one else saw her confabulating with the manifestation. Is that not enough evidence?

 

[epronovost]

Did not their manifestation have a vision of a 'heavenly maiden' as he said? Is that not enough evidence?

What do you mean? A dude who claims to have heard the voice of god isn't more credible because he also claims to have seen attractive women in his mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you could be mistaken. We are asking for facts and a lucid argument, not your personal endorsement. All you offer is useless endorsement. Not good enough for debate.

I do not expect you to believe it is true because I believe it is true.
As I have told you before I am not looking for a debate.

But you don't know if a God exists, or it has any power if it does.

Nobody knows that as a fact. I believe that but it can never be proven. There is no point trying to prove the unprovable. One either believes it based upon scriptures or not.

So you are God's representative, but can't even show it exists. So you might as well be God.

I am not God's representative, Baha'u'llah was God's representative who shows that God exists.

But we don't care what you believe. We care about if WHAT you believe is factual and rational. You offer no facts, nor any substantive argument. You only tell us your beliefs as if they are fact. Or as if you are somehow infallible.

All I can tell you is what I believe, because that is all I have, a belief. If you don't like that maybe you can find a theist who thinks they have more than a belief.

No God beliefs are subject to being factual. I never stated any of my beliefs as if they are facts. Innumerable times I have said they are not facts.

Thus God is responsible for everything. That means evolution. That means diseases. That means cancers. That means the people who wage war. The buck stops at your God. So if you worship your God you also worship every evil person it created through time.

God is not responsible for everything that happens in this world, that is beyond ludicrous. God is only responsible for creating the world such as it was, not for everything that happened after that. God is not responsible for anything that is freely chosen by humans.
Waging war is a choice. Cancer is a disease people get. Nobody is responsible for it.

So you care about your family but you don't care if they suffer? So if your mother has cancer and suffer agonizing pain you don't care?

Of course I would care but what is your point? Do you have to find someone to blame?

You care about the cancer, but not her suffering from cancer, is that what you are suggesting about your God? If not, then clarify how it doesn't care about your suffering but cares about you.

It suggests NOTHING about my God or if it cares about me. Suffering exists but I don't have to blame God for it, not anymore. It took me 10 years to crawl out from under that rock so I am not going back there.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Tb will admit she doesn't have facts and knowledge of a God, but will then write a post that asserts factual things about God.

"I don't know if God exists, but he has long, white flowing hair, and a penis. But you can't see the penis because that's obscene, and it's invisible, along with the rest of God."

If he has a penis, then he must have a hole too. Are we not made in the image of God?

 

[Trailblazer]

So you're claiming you are absolutely certain a God exists as a fact. Explain how you know this.

I did not claim I know anything as a fact. I said I know God is immaterial and as such God cannot ever be seen. I know that from the Bible. The Bible is a religious scripture, not a factual document.

 

[Trailblazer]

but will then write a post that asserts factual things about God.

Straw man.

 

[epronovost]

I did not claim I know anything as a fact. I said I know God is immaterial and as such God cannot ever be seen. I know that from the Bible. The Bible is a religious scripture, not a factual document.

Then you don't know it; you believe it because you believe the content of the Bible is accurate.

 

[lukethethird]

I did not claim I know anything as a fact. I said I know God is immaterial and as such God cannot ever be seen. I know that from the Bible. The Bible is a religious scripture, not a factual document.

To know means to have knowledge of which you do not have, you merely have belief.

 

[Truthseeker]

Closer to Truth can also be found on YouTube. Some episodes are very interesting with competent guests, others, not so much. It is hit and miss. Not all are concerned with the existence of god(s).

Yes, I know they are not all concerned with the existence of God. I just said so. Consciousness is a theme, and Cosmos is a theme.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As I have told you before I am not looking for a debate.
Baha'u'llah was God's representative who shows that God exists.
Innumerable times I have said they are not facts.
God is only responsible for creating the world such as it was, not for everything that happened after that. Cancer is a disease people get. Nobody is responsible for it.
Do you have to find someone to blame?

If you are not looking for a debate, then why are you in the General Religious Debates forum?
What did that uneducated 19th Century Iranian preacher show?
If they are not facts, then what are you touting here?
Who is responsible lfor infantile leukemia or other genetic disorders?
Yeah, if there is a fault, then someone has to be responsible for it.

 

[Trailblazer]

As for Gods, well...... They tend to be supernatural, and there is no known supernatural phenomenon existing. So any superficial claim about a God is by nature implausible. You need extraordinary evidence. Not claims. Not belief. Not messengers.

It is not implausible to me. In fact, it is implausible that there would be no God.
I don't even need a Messenger to believe in God, it is obvious that God exists.
You need extraordinary evidence. I already have extraordinary evidence. That is why I know that God exists, without factual proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you are not looking for a debate, then why are you in the General Religious Debate forum?

I had to post my thread in the most appropriate forum, but that does not mean I want to argue with atheists. Did you see my OP? Does that look like I am looking for an argument?

 

[lukethethird]

It is not implausible to me. In fact, it is implausible that there would be no God.
I don't even need a Messenger to believe in God, it is obvious that God exists.
You need extraordinary evidence. I already have extraordinary evidence. That is why I know that God exists, without factual proof.

You don't need to know anything about God existing to believe, and that is all you have, a belief, with no knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you don't know it; you believe it because you believe the content of the Bible is accurate.

I do not necessarily believe that all the content of the Bible is accurate, but I believe that God is immaterial because God resides in a spiritual realm where there is nothing material. What the Essence of God is comprised of nobody knows, as the Essence of God is a mystery.

 

[lukethethird]

I do not necessarily believe that all the content of the Bible is accurate, but I believe that God is immaterial because God resides in a spiritual realm where there is nothing material. What the Essence of God is comprised of nobody knows, as the Essence of God is a mystery.

It's no mystery, it's just a belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

To know means to have knowledge of which you do not have, you merely have belief.

I have knowledge, just not factual knowledge. All knowledge is not factual.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's no mystery, it's just a belief.

It is a belief that God is a mystery. A belief can be either true or false.