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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What you said is true, which is why miracles in the past are not guidance for the future or present, but rather Quran says:

And the disbelievers say why a sign not revealed regarding him, you are only a warner and for every people, there is a guide!" (13:7)

A current guide showing miracles, seeing those signs by his hands would not be circular reasoning and is in fact, what Quran means by his proof.

I didn't say "miracles;" I said "messengers."

That being said, the whole idea of "miracles" is inconsistent nonsense. Here's the problem:

- a miracle is something that happens despite not being possible by natural laws.
- but natural laws are inferred from observation of what happens.
- this means that everything that happens is natural.
- so a miracle that happened would both be natural (since it's a thing that happened, and therefore form an observation that would be incorporated into natural laws) and not natural (by definition).


... so when people talk about "miracles" happening, they may as well be talking about square circles.

Demonstrate God with empirical evidence, just like anything else. Build up a set of evidence so strong that the universe makes much more sense with God in our model than without him.

 

[Link]

I didn't say "miracles;" I said "messengers."

That being said, the whole idea of "miracles" is inconsistent nonsense. Here's the problem:

- a miracle is something that happens despite not being possible by natural laws.
- but natural laws are inferred from observation of what happens.
- this means that everything that happens is natural.
- so a miracle that happened would both be natural (since it's a thing that happened, and therefore form an observation that would be incorporated into natural laws) and not natural (by definition).


... so when people talk about "miracles" happening, they may as well be talking about square circles.

Demonstrate God with empirical evidence, just like anything else. Build up a set of evidence so strong that the universe makes much more sense with God in our model than without him.

Miracles would demonstrate God and be a proof for him and his power - as well that the performer of them is trusted by God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Past guides, you are right. A current guide who you meet, that's a different story.

No; all guides.

Establishing that someone is sent by God is impossible until you establish that there's a God who could have sent him.

 

[Link]

I didn't say "miracles;" I said "messengers."

That being said, the whole idea of "miracles" is inconsistent nonsense. Here's the problem:

- a miracle is something that happens despite not being possible by natural laws.
- but natural laws are inferred from observation of what happens.
- this means that everything that happens is natural.
- so a miracle that happened would both be natural (since it's a thing that happened, and therefore form an observation that would be incorporated into natural laws) and not natural (by definition).


... so when people talk about "miracles" happening, they may as well be talking about square circles.

Demonstrate God with empirical evidence, just like anything else. Build up a set of evidence so strong that the universe makes much more sense with God in our model than without him.

Messengers were all Guides who can perform miracles and did some or many as proofs.

 

[Link]

No; all guides.

Establishing that someone is sent by God is impossible until you establish that there's a God who could have sent him.

You can establish the Guide is God's Guide by miracles, which automatically make you accept God. Miracles are proofs for Guides (current one).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Messengers were all Guides who can perform miracles and did some or many as proofs.

As I said, the idea of "miracles" is fundamentally nonsense.

If you think you saw someone do something that would be impossible for a person to do, then you're wrong.

It's like the claim "all swans are white": it's refuted by the observation of a single black swan.

Likewise, the claim "it's impossible for a person to do (insert "miraculous" claim)" is refuted by observing a single person doing it.

 

[Link]

As I said, the idea of "miracles" is fundamentally nonsense.

If you think you saw someone do something that would be impossible for a person to do, then you're wrong.

It's like the claim "all swans are white": it's refuted by the observation of a single black swan.

Likewise, the claim "it's impossible for a person to do (insert "miraculous" claim)" is refuted by observing a single person doing it.

If you won't accept miracles to display God or his guidance or God's guide, you really have no one to blame but yourself for not being shown them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you won't accept miracles to display God or his guidance or God's guide, you really have no one to blame but yourself for not being shown them.

I accept evidence. I don't accept the irrational question-begging inherent in the term "miracle."

If something extraordinary happened that you think is best explained by God's existence, then make a proper case for it (edit: both that it actually happened and that God is the best explanation for it). Don't just lazily slap the incoherent label "miracle" on it instead of making a real argument.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you won't accept miracles to display God or his guidance or God's guide, you really have no one to blame but yourself for not being shown them.

Never seen a miracle, myself. And while I have heard some claims from others, it turns out -- surprisingly often -- that they have been proven to be lies, or to have natural causes, or (my goodness) to have been just something someone heard, and decided for themselves to accept as true.

So bring on the "real miracle," and let's examine it. I'm sure if it's a real miracle, it will change some minds.

 

[Link]

Never seen a miracle, myself. And while I have heard some claims from others, it turns out -- surprisingly often -- that they have been proven to be lies, or to have natural causes, or (my goodness) to have been just something someone heard, and decided for themselves to accept as true.

So bring on the "real miracle," and let's examine it. I'm sure if it's a real miracle, it will change some minds.

I pray you are shown them soon. I truly believe God and his Guide want to guide people and signs in form of miracles has always been and still remains of God's favors to humanity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I pray you are shown them soon. I truly believe God and his Guide want to guide people and signs in form of miracles has always been and still remains of God's favors to humanity.

So you believe that God's will hasn't come to pass yet?

What do you think was powerful enough to thwart God's will?

 

[Koldo]

Clearly, I would still be dreaming. Or so I would have to presume.

The problem with "proof of God" is that no human can rule out the possible alternative explanations. Just as no human can rule out the existence of God as the explanation. In the end, it's a matter of choice, and of faith, REGARDLESS OF WHAT CHOICE YOU MAKE (even atheism).

Do you belive I am human?
Can you rule out that I am not a human but rather an alien from Mars?

It is not necessary to rule out all possibilities to reach a conclusion. That's not really what is being asked for when people ask for evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Clearly, I would still be dreaming. Or so I would have to presume.

The problem with "proof of God" is that no human can rule out the possible alternative explanations. Just as no human can rule out the existence of God as the explanation. In the end, it's a matter of choice, and of faith, REGARDLESS OF WHAT CHOICE YOU MAKE (even atheism).

I find it funny when monotheists say things like this. They don't appreciate the irony.

 

[PureX]

Do you belive I am human?
Can you rule out that I am not a human but rather an alien from Mars?

It is not necessary to rule out all possibilities to reach a conclusion. That's not really what is being asked for when people ask for evidence.

well, if we are being honest, we will have to admit that we can't rule out a great many things, especially the existence of God. We can determine probabilities, but they are going to be based on our very limited knowledge and experience: basically a bias.

So it seems to me that it's foolish to "believe in" our own theories, regardless, and wise to remain both open to, but skeptical of any and all possibilities.

 

[F1fan]

Option 4
God exists and he hid evidence because lord knows what humans would do with it

Option 5:
God exists and is nothing like what is commonly believed.

 

[F1fan]

Practically every minute of every hour of every day, but like @firedragon I think that atheists are illogical and I cannot work with illogic, it drives me nuts.

You've had chances to use logic to argue your beliefs and you did not use it. You often misapply fallacies to your critics while using fallacies yourself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Option 5:
God exists and is nothing like what is commonly believed.

I'm not sure that's a valid option.

Pretty much the only thing common to all gods is that a god is an object of human worship. IMO, anything that's a radical departure from the gods humanity believes in wouldn't qualify as a god.

 

[F1fan]

I was not implying that atheists are illogical because they don't believe in God. I was only referring to the evidence for God's existence.

Your "evidence" is typically what you believe, and what you think you experienced, neither of which is actually evidence in an objective and argumentative way. That's why it's rejected. We've been over this.

I think that atheists are illogical because they expect to have verifiable evidence that God exists.

Evidence HAS to be verifiable. THAT is what makes it evidence.

How could God ever be verified to exist?

Then how can ordinary mortals ever think one exists, unless the mortal human has special powers?

Or they want empirical evidence, but nobody has ever seen God. Do you see the problem?

The problem its believers don't understand the weakness of their beliefs. Believers seldom understand why they believe at all, which has an evolutionary and biological component. The specifics of religious belief is cultural and driven by social influence. No one comes to an objective and evidentiary conclusion that a God exists.

 

[PureX]

Option 5:
God exists and is nothing like what is commonly believed.

I choose this one.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not sure that's a valid option.

Pretty much the only thing common to all gods is that a god is an object of human worship. IMO, anything that's a radical departure from the gods humanity believes in wouldn't qualify as a god.

Then if we are classifying based on common belief then it would invalidate any number of possible options. There could be thousands of options, if parsed enough. This whole exercise is difficult since "god" isn't defined at all. Heck even fervent believers in God have no idea what it is they believe in.