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

[Tiberius]

Do you ever wonder why you have to keep pointing out what 'you believe' are 'my errors?'

Both myself and several other people.

What does that do for you?

Not for me. I'm making sure that any spectators can see the logical flaws in your arguments. (And don't start with that tired old, "I'm not making any claims or arguments" refrain.)

I don't wonder at all, because Baha'u'llah explained why. And as long as you keep pointing out what 'you believe' are my errors I will keep pointing out what Baha'u'llah wrote about WHY people magnify the faults of others.

44. O Companion of My Throne!

Hear no evil, and see no evil, abase not thyself, neither sigh and weep. Speak no evil, that thou mayest not hear it spoken unto thee, and magnify not the faults of others that thine own faults may not appear great; and wish not the abasement of anyone, that thine own abasement be not exposed. Live then the days of thy life, that are less than a fleeting moment, with thy mind stainless, thy heart unsullied, thy thoughts pure, and thy nature sanctified, so that, free and content, thou mayest put away this mortal frame, and repair unto the mystic paradise and abide in the eternal kingdom forevermore.

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh

Not really any different to Christians claiming that the Bible is uncorrupted, or Muslims claiming the Koran is uncorrupted, etc. There's nothing special about your faith.

 

[Tiberius]

Criteria by which to measure what?

Boy, you sure do have a lot of trouble keeping track of the conversation. As I've mentioned lots of times, you can click the little arrow to see exactly what post of yours I was responding to. Is this too difficult for you? Are you suffering from memory problems that left you unable to remember we were talking about the use of reason in animals?

 

[Tiberius]

No establishing that 5 is greater than 3 does proves that 5 is greater than 3.

But does it INDICATE that 5 is greater than 3?

It's a simple yes or no question. It's not hard to answer it.

 

[firedragon]

I choose what I like. There are things on which I differ from Buddha, but accept what appears to me as correct. There is no one whose word I will take like Christians and Muslims take what is written in Bible or Quran.

Still, you are being absolutely unscientific. You can cherry pick what you want from all of these religions and Buddhism to try and propagate your agenda. But that's called "cherry picking" as I said already. That is not science or being scientific and I say that since your religion seems to be scientism which you are even not aware of.

You can preach all you want like a church preacher, but none of that preaching can defy the philosophy of science that you want to engage in yourself, which is science is approached with naturalism as a methodology. You just dont wish to accept it, and you are being absolutely unscientific. Funny.

 

[Sheldon]

See, what is the un-evidenced claim? What do you mean "un-evidenced"? Lol.

It means offered without objective evidence, what a bizarre question?

If you think ad hominem is great come back when you have no humility to clarify what you dont understand,

I don't think you know what ad hominem means. So maybe this will help, my comments were directed at what you had posted, and in a more general sense at your penchant to post bare claims. Like at the end of your posts where you claim I have no humility and don't understand something, but offer nothing beyond the bare claim.

 

[Sheldon]

So when someone says "metaphysics is not scientifically proven in a lab", that's a strawman fallacy? Maybe you should study what strawman fallacy is.

Since I have never claimed metaphysics can be scientifically proven in a lab, it was a strawman fallacy you created.

I asked what logical axioms you adhere to. Your reply is "And I answered you".

Which I did.

I think you just dont know anything about principles of logic.

You can think the moon is made of cheese if it make you happy, I'm not sure why I should care?

How about the "principle of sufficient reason"? Its PSR, and is a principle or an axiom. At least now that I have spelled it out, is there any possibility at all that rather than trying your levels best to insult people, just answer this question? Do you at least adhere to PSR as an axiom in a logical discourse?

That's a philosophical principle, and it is considered controversial, it has no relevance to my original post you responded to, or the context in which I pointed out that using a known logical fallacy violated a basic principle of logic. You seem to prefer to attack me than address what I'd said, you also seem now to be following me through multiple threads to do this, how odd.

I don't respond to trolling sorry.

 

[firedragon]

Since I have never claimed metaphysics can be scientifically proven in a lab, it was a strawman fallacy you created.

Why did you assume I responded to you? That was not for you.

 

[firedragon]

That's a philosophical principle, and it is considered controversial

How about the principle of non-contradiction?

 

[Sheldon]

Why did you assume I responded to you? That was not for you.

Probably had something to do with you quoting a post of mine when you said it.

So when someone says "metaphysics is not scientifically proven in a lab", that's a strawman fallacy? Maybe you should study what strawman fallacy is.

 

[Sheldon]

How about the principle of non-contradiction?

How is it relevant to my post pointing out a logical fallacy in another post, or that using a known common logical fallacy is irrational? This all stemmed from there, and I'm not seeing the relevance?

 

[firedragon]

How is it relevant to my post pointing out a logical fallacy

It is not.

Remember mate? This is all since I asked you what Logical Principles you adhere to because "You brought up logical principles".

So I am asking you about what logical axioms you adhere to. Or did you just make that statement without knowledge of logic? Thats no problem if it so. If you dont know something, just say yo dont know.

There are logical principles that are taken as foundational in logic. There are rules that are fundamental for obtaining formulas extra to them. So I thought you knew what you were talking about and asked you a question to simply engage with you based on your own terms.

But you have no knowledge on it so that conversation cannot be had. Neither do you have humility. So its impossible.

I wish you well Sheldon. Cheers.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are giving a license to crooks, scammers, fakes and falsehood if you do not ask for evidence.

I have provided the only evidence I know of. There is no scientifically verifiable evidence for religion, that is only for science.

They sure do what is necessary for them. And in case, the environment at one place does not suit them, they go to other places or stay put.
Climate change and migratory birds

They can do what is necessary for them to live, because that is how God set it up, but they can't do what is necessary for humans to live, as humans have to do that for themselves.

 

[Trailblazer]

We cannot leave you because you cannot leave us but keep posting sayings of your uneducated 19th Century Iranian, self-proclaimed messenger of Allah.

That is absolutely FALSE. As I said to @Tiberius you leave me alone and you won't hear from me.
Who is posting to who? You posted to me, I did not post to you. I only respond because I consider that the polite thing to do.

Do you really think that I like getting all these posts? Think again. A good day for me is when I wake up and turn on the computer and there are only a few posts I have to look at and answer, but more often that not it is 15 or 25 that come in overnight. This is worse than hell.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what is your proof of existence of God, and what is your proof for the Iranian to be a messenger of Allah?

There is no proof, only evidence. I have posted that evidence dozens of times.

 

[Trailblazer]

Both myself and several other people.

Not for me. I'm making sure that any spectators can see the logical flaws in your arguments. (And don't start with that tired old, "I'm not making any claims or arguments" refrain.)

Why do you care what others see in my arguments? That is the hundred-dollar question only you can answer.

Not really any different to Christians claiming that the Bible is uncorrupted, or Muslims claiming the Koran is uncorrupted, etc. There's nothing special about your faith.

You are free to hold that opinion but it is only a personal opinion. It is not a fact unless you can prove it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Boy, you sure do have a lot of trouble keeping track of the conversation. As I've mentioned lots of times, you can click the little arrow to see exactly what post of yours I was responding to. Is this too difficult for you? Are you suffering from memory problems that left you unable to remember we were talking about the use of reason in animals?

I did go back and see what was said before but I still did not understand what you meant.

Trailblazer said: Maybe so, but they cannot do what humans can do.
Can animals build airplanes and develop vaccines, address climate change?

Tiberius said: No, but how did you determine that those are criteria by which to measure it?

What you said was unclear and that is why I asked for further clarification. What criteria? Criteria by which to measure what?

I am close to being done with your insults and I have better things to do than waste my time defending myself from them. Your insults say more about you than they say about me, would you but know it. Decent respectable people never talk to people they way you talk to me. This behavior and what it demonstrates is clearly apparent to other atheists and believers who never engage in such behavior.

 

[Tiberius]

Why do you care what others see in my arguments? That is the hundred-dollar question only you can answer.

Because I want them to have a well balanced view.

You are free to hold that opinion but it is only a personal opinion. It is not a fact unless you can prove it.

I have verified it in exactly the same way that you have verified your own faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

But does it INDICATE that 5 is greater than 3?

It's a simple yes or no question. It's not hard to answer it.

No.

 

[Tiberius]

I did go back and see what was said before but I still did not understand what you meant.

Trailblazer said: Maybe so, but they cannot do what humans can do.
Can animals build airplanes and develop vaccines, address climate change?

Tiberius said: No, but how did you determine that those are criteria by which to measure it?

What you said was unclear and that is why I asked for further clarification. What criteria? Criteria by which to measure what?

The criteria was the ability to build airplanes and develop vaccines and address climate change. I don't see how that was confusing at all.

And the "what" was displaying intelligence, as specified in post 2203.

I am close to being done with your insults and I have better things to do than waste my time defending myself from them. Your insults say more about you than they say about me, would you but know it. Decent respectable people never talk to people they way you talk to me. This behavior and what it demonstrates is clearly apparent to other atheists and believers who never engage in such behavior.

I have never insulted you. I have pointed out your use of logical fallacies. That is not an insult, even if you choose to interpret as such.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because I want them to have a well balanced view.

Why do you care what views other people have?

I have verified it in exactly the same way that you have verified your own faith.

Can you explain how you verified it?