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

[Tiberius]

Yes I do, because I could never understand what he was saying.

I completely agree.

 

[Tiberius]

I am far from perfect. Besides, I cannot know what other people are going to understand, as all people are different.

True, human language can be fickle at times.

But honestly, if you say, "Proof does not indicate," then you really should expect people to take it as meaning that you think proof does not indicate.

 

[Tiberius]

Of course we got different results. We are different people with completely different childhood and adulthood backgrounds and different knowledge bases and different ways of thinking so we are going to view the evidence for the Baha'i Faith very differently. Do you really think that I read the Bible and then come to exactly the same conclusions as a Christian does? Not even every Christian comes to the same conclusions despite reading the same Bible. How do you explain that?

If we are looking for objectively true facts about the universe, then all that is completely irrelevant.

If someone measures the speed of light and gets a result saying it moves a one meter per second, that is not explained away by saying its because he had a different childhood, or any other nonsense like that.

Objective reality is the same for EVERYONE.

If we get different results about religion, then it just goes to show that religion does not reflect any objective truths about the universe.

You are are wrong if you think I want my religion to be true. Do you really think it is easy being a Baha'i? I ran away from this responsibility for most of my life. Then when I got older I changed my mind and decided it was important to reconcile with God and try to do something with my religion.

So what? There are people, I'm sure, who do not WANT to be Muslim, but they have so convinced themselves of it that they can't give up their faith. The same for any other religion. It does not mean your beliefs are correct.

I doubt you read what I read about the Baha'i Faith, so how could you come to the same conclusions I came to? But even if we both read from exactly the same sources we would not come to the same conclusions.

Again, it does not work like that with objective facts. Thus, your faith is not objectively true.

Not everyone will recognize the truth despite looking at the same evidence, and in the early days of every new religion only a few people recognize it as true. That is why Jesus said:

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

And why Baha'u'llah said:

“The Book of God is wide open, and His Word is summoning mankind unto Him. No more than a mere handful, however, hath been found willing to cleave to His Cause, or to become the instruments for its promotion. These few have been endued with the Divine Elixir that can, alone, transmute into purest gold the dross of the world, and have been empowered to administer the infallible remedy for all the ills that afflict the children of men. No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 183

And look at you, the same world is available to you that is available to me, yet you have chosen to reject the idea that verifiable evidence is the only way to find objective truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's very concerning that you still haven't learned that clicking the arrow next to the name in the quote box takes you directly to the post in question. If you had used that you would be able to follow the conversation quite easily.

In any case, it defeats the claim you made in post 2261 that Humans are the best at "acquiring and applying knowledge and skills," as per the definition of intelligence you provided - a claim I demolished in post 2265. In any case, measuring intelligence is difficult because it is such a vague and nebulous concept. is it measured by problem solving ability? The ability to see things from the point of view of others?

And I am growing tired of your claims of not knowing what we are talking about. If you have memory problems, there are any number of ways to deal with it, including the links in each quote box to the post being quoted, which allow you to look back through the conversation. I use them plenty, so can you.

You want me to do more work looking back so you will have less work typing a post but I will not be told what to do. If I am not sure of something I am going to ask. I have no memory problems at all, I just don't want to waste time guessing what you were referring to as a claim. Going back and reading previous posts would have just been me trying to figure out what you were referring to.

If you are tired of my asking what you were referring to me then there is a simple solution -- don't talk to me.

In any case, I already stated my position. I believe humans have rational soul which is what makes them different from other animals. The soul of man allows man to reason at a higher level and think in the abstract and solve problems no other animals can. No animal has the ability to see things from the point of view of others. Some humans don't see things from the point of view of others but they have the capacity.

How amazing that you came up with these beliefs all on your own that just so happened to match the official position of the Baha'i faith!

I did not say that I came up with these ideas on my own, I said I learned them from the Baha'i Faith.

So what? Doesn't mean it's right. To a lot of people, it's common sense that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Intuition is a LOUSY way to get the truth.

So you believe that non-human animals can know and worship God? What evidence is there that even indicates that?

There is no evidence that any non-human animals believe in God or gods, pray, worship, have any notion of metaphysics, create artifacts with ritual significance, or many other behaviours typical of human significance, or many other behaviours typical of human religion. ...
Religious behavior in animals - Wikipedia

How utterly arrogant is it to think that humans are better because they have religion?

I never said that humans are better than other animals. FYI, I like animals better than most humans and my entire life revolves around animals, not humans.

Well, you seem to change it very often in this thread, from one position to a new one, then back to the old one, then back to the new one... It almost seems as if you hold one position, then claim to have changed it when faced with some difficulty of the first position, then immediately go back to it once you have escaped from the problem. Now, I'm not saying you ARE doing this, but it sure looks an awful lot like it.

Looks can be deceiving so it is best to take my word for what I am actually doing because I know myself better than you know me.

 

[Trailblazer]

If we are looking for objectively true facts about the universe, then all that is completely irrelevant.

If someone measures the speed of light and gets a result saying it moves a one meter per second, that is not explained away by saying its because he had a different childhood, or any other nonsense like that.

Objective reality is the same for EVERYONE.
Scientific facts are the same for everyone because they can be proven thus there is nothing to dispute.

If we get different results about religion, then it just goes to show that religion does not reflect any objective truths about the universe.

The purpose of religion is not to reflect objective truths about the universe.

“The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 215

If we get different results about religion that is because there mare many different religious beliefs that were revealed by different Messengers in different ages. If everyone became a Baha'i, then we would no longer have disagreement about religion. I believe that will happen in the future.

So what? There are people, I'm sure, who do not WANT to be Muslim, but they have so convinced themselves of it that they can't give up their faith. The same for any other religion. It does not mean your beliefs are correct.

You have the misconception that people believe in a religion because they convinced themselves but that is not the reason. Most people believe in the religion they were raised in and people like me who were raised in no religion investigated the facts surrounding the religion and came to believe it was true based upon those facts.

Again, it does not work like that with objective facts. Thus, your faith is not objectively true.

It absolutely does work that way with objective facts when they are related to a religion.

And look at you, the same world is available to you that is available to me, yet you have chosen to reject the idea that verifiable evidence is the only way to find objective truth.

I have verifiable evidence.

 

[Truthseeker]

And look at you, the same world is available to you that is available to me, yet you have chosen to reject the idea that verifiable evidence is the only way to find objective truth.

Like I have said elsewhere in different words, religion and science are not comparable in how they find truth. Science uses objective only to ascertain an approximate truth. There is inevitably some subjectivity in religion, though there is objective evidence, also. With atheists also often there is an insistence that only the material exists. We reject that perspective. There has long been a split between science and religion, between the material and the spiritual. It started perhaps in the 16th or 17th century. It was started by Christians that were dogmatic in their beliefs about the universe they lived in. We Baha'is seek to heal that split. It is not just Baha'is who seek to heal that split. There are many co-religionists who are going the same.

 

[Tiberius]

You want me to do more work looking back so you will have less work typing a post but I will not be told what to do. If I am not sure of something I am going to ask. I have no memory problems at all, I just don't want to waste time guessing what you were referring to as a claim. Going back and reading previous posts would have just been me trying to figure out what you were referring to.

It's not that hard.

If you are tired of my asking what you were referring to me then there is a simple solution -- don't talk to me.

And that would seem perfectly reasonable if I hadn't seen lots of people do the same thing to get their opponents to give up so they could claim victory.

In any case, I already stated my position. I believe humans have rational soul which is what makes them different from other animals. The soul of man allows man to reason at a higher level and think in the abstract and solve problems no other animals can. No animal has the ability to see things from the point of view of others. Some humans don't see things from the point of view of others but they have the capacity.

Yet another unsupported claim. Many of them, actually. And none of them are falsifiable either. How convenient.

I did not say that I came up with these ideas on my own, I said I learned them from the Baha'i Faith.

So you became a Baha'i and you learned about this and agreed with it because you were a Baha'i and that's what the faith required.

So you believe that non-human animals can know and worship God? What evidence is there that even indicates that?

I heard a story about a dog who, whenever his owners would go out, would always get one of their shoes and put it on their bed. The owners suspect that one day the dog did this and when the owners came home, the dog associated the two events, essentially believing that placing the shoe on the bed was responsible for the owners coming home. One day when the owners were out for longer than usual, they came home to find every shoe in the house on the bed.

Now, it seems to me that "If I do X, it will result in Y" isn't far off, "If I pray, I will get what I want."

There is no evidence that any non-human animals believe in God or gods, pray, worship, have any notion of metaphysics, create artifacts with ritual significance, or many other behaviours typical of human significance, or many other behaviours typical of human religion. ...
Religious behavior in animals - Wikipedia

And did you miss the note in the text that points out that the article is inconsistent with that claim?

I never said that humans are better than other animals. FYI, I like animals better than most humans and my entire life revolves around animals, not humans.

So then you just think religion just makes Humans more intelligent?

Looks can be deceiving so it is best to take my word for what I am actually doing because I know myself better than you know me.

Actions speak louder than words.

If your actions have you flip flopping between two different position as the need arises, then your words saying you aren't doing that will fall on deaf ears.

 

[Tiberius]

The purpose of religion is not to reflect objective truths about the universe.

“The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 215

If we get different results about religion that is because there mare many different religious beliefs that were revealed by different Messengers in different ages. If everyone became a Baha'i, then we would no longer have disagreement about religion. I believe that will happen in the future.

You have claimed that you believe God objectively exists. Your statement would seem to contradict this.

You have the misconception that people believe in a religion because they convinced themselves but that is not the reason. Most people believe in the religion they were raised in and people like me who were raised in no religion investigated the facts surrounding the religion and came to believe it was true based upon those facts.

As I've said before, there are equivalent facts about Star Trek, that doesn't mean Klingons are real.

It absolutely does work that way with objective facts when they are related to a religion.

Special pleading fallacy.

I have verifiable evidence.

Care to share it then, this verifiable evidence that proves your religious beliefs are correct?

 

[Trailblazer]

And that would seem perfectly reasonable if I hadn't seen lots of people do the same thing to get their opponents to give up so they could claim victory.

I do not see you as an opponent so there would be no victory to claim. I told you a long time ago that I am not trying to win a debate because I am not in a debate to win, I am in a discussion to share thoughts and learn.

Yet another unsupported claim. Many of them, actually. And none of them are falsifiable either. How convenient.

It is not a claim, it is my belief some of which can be supported by science.

So you became a Baha'i and you learned about this and agreed with it because you were a Baha'i and that's what the faith required.

No, I learned the Baha'i beliefs about the soul before I became a Baha'i, and then I became a Baha'i and learned more about it.

I heard a story about a dog who, whenever his owners would go out, would always get one of their shoes and put it on their bed. The owners suspect that one day the dog did this and when the owners came home, the dog associated the two events, essentially believing that placing the shoe on the bed was responsible for the owners coming home. One day when the owners were out for longer than usual, they came home to find every shoe in the house on the bed.

Now, it seems to me that "If I do X, it will result in Y" isn't far off, "If I pray, I will get what I want."

That has nothing to do with God or praying or worshiping God. The dog thought that he would get Y, what it wanted from the owners, by doing X.

And did you miss the note in the text that points out that the article is inconsistent with that claim?

I read it and I did not see anything inconsistent in the article.

So then you just think religion just makes Humans more intelligent?

No, I do not think human intelligence has anything to do with religion. It is related to the human brain and how it operates.

Actions speak louder than words.

If your actions have you flip flopping between two different position as the need arises, then your words saying you aren't doing that will fall on deaf ears.

No, not as the need arises because I am not changing my mind because of a need. I change my mind because I realized something I had not thought of before or because I learned something new, as I said before.

How would you like it if you told me your reason for saying something was X, and I told you no, I don't believe you, I think your reason for saying it is Y?

 

[We Never Know]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

What would be evidence of anything supernatural?
Would we know what it was if we saw it?

 

[Trailblazer]

You have claimed that you believe God objectively exists. Your statement would seem to contradict this.

How does this statement contradict that God objectively exists?

"If we get different results about religion that is because there mare many different religious beliefs that were revealed by different Messengers in different ages. If everyone became a Baha'i, then we would no longer have disagreement about religion. I believe that will happen in the future."

As I've said before, there are equivalent facts about Star Trek, that doesn't mean Klingons are real.

No, the facts about Star Trek are not equivalent to the facts about religion.

Care to share it then, this verifiable evidence that proves your religious beliefs are correct?

Been there, done that. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[Trailblazer]

What would be evidence of anything supernatural?
Would we know what it was if we saw it?

You would not see it if it was supernatural, you could only see it if it was natural.
So the evidence would have to be something natural, something we could see.

 

[We Never Know]

You would not see it if it was supernatural, you could only see it if it was natural.
So the evidence would have to be something natural, something we could see.

So if a god is supernatural, then no one should expect evidence of a god correct?

 

[Tiberius]

Like I have said elsewhere in different words, religion and science are not comparable in how they find truth. Science uses objective only to ascertain an approximate truth. There is inevitably some subjectivity in religion, though there is objective evidence, also. With atheists also often there is an insistence that only the material exists. We reject that perspective. There has long been a split between science and religion, between the material and the spiritual. It started perhaps in the 16th or 17th century. It was started by Christians that were dogmatic in their beliefs about the universe they lived in. We Baha'is seek to heal that split. It is not just Baha'is who seek to heal that split. There are many co-religionists who are going the same.

If the religious claims were more consistent, it would be much more convincing.

But they aren't, so it isn't.

 

[Tiberius]

That has nothing to do with God or praying or worshiping God. The dog thought that he would get Y, what it wanted from the owners, by doing X.

And how many times did the dog do it and it didn't work?

That's the difference between religion and science.

With science, you do a thing and it has the same result every single time.

With religion, you do the same thing and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's straight away, and some times it's a long time, and sometimes it's never.

Science is consistent, religion is not.

I read it and I did not see anything inconsistent in the article.

No, I do not think human intelligence has anything to do with religion. It is related to the human brain and how it operates.

Then why, in this discussion about your religious belief that God gave Humans a soul by which to raise them above all other animals, did you even bother bringing it up?

No, not as the need arises because I am not changing my mind because of a need. I change my mind because I realized something I had not thought of before or because I learned something new, as I said before.

Ah, so once you have changed your mind about something, you don't later change it back to your original point of view?

How would you like it if you told me your reason for saying something was X, and I told you no, I don't believe you, I think your reason for saying it is Y?

Depends. Had you seen the same kind of tactic to get out of a position for which there was no rational defense used by others in the past repeatedly?

 

[Tiberius]

How does this statement contradict that God objectively exists?

Trailblazer: I believe God objectively exists!

Also Trailblazer: The purpose of religion is not to reflect objective truths about the universe.

So, if religion isn't here to provide any objective truths, how can you possibly claim that your God objectively exists?

No, the facts about Star Trek are not equivalent to the facts about religion.

Yes they are.

You've claimed many objectively true facts about the universe as evidence that your religion is correct: Mr B really existed, he went to certain places, he made certain claims, etc.

I can point out many things in Star Trek that are also objectively true. The first manned landing on the moon was launched on a wednesday, for example. And yes, this prophecy was made BEFORE the mission was planned.

So if your factual statements support the untestable parts of your religion, then Star Trek's factual statements sup[poprt the untestable parts of my favorite TV franchise.

Been there, done that. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

So it's your "only verified in my mind" evidence, not REAL verified evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

You would not see it if it was supernatural,

This seems like a special pleading fallacy to me. At the very least it is being offered without any evidence, and as such is little more than assumption.

Of course the word itself seems to make the assumption for an extant force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. What are we detecting it with then one wonders? Does this force provide an objective data, beyond pointing at the physical material world and universe, and then simply asserting god did it?

 

[Trailblazer]

And how many times did the dog do it and it didn't work?

That's the difference between religion and science.

With science, you do a thing and it has the same result every single time.

With religion, you do the same thing and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's straight away, and some times it's a long time, and sometimes it's never.

Science is consistent, religion is not.

I cannot disagree with anything you said. Science is consistent whereas religion is not

Then why, in this discussion about your religious belief that God gave Humans a soul by which to raise them above all other animals, did you even bother bringing it up?

I brought it up because of what you said in post #2292.

So what? Other animals have the capacity to do things that humans cannot do.

You seem to have this idea that humans = best and are trying to find some way to justify your conclusion. I, on the other hand, recognise that Humans are just another species of animal and we aren't separate to the environment, we are part of it.
#2292 Tiberius, Tuesday at 6:50 PM

To which I replied:

Humans are not just another species of animal. Humans are animals but they are more than animals because humans have a soul and other animals only have an animal spirit. That is my belief, you can take it or leave it:

“The human spirit which distinguishes man from the animal is the rational soul, and these two names—the human spirit and the rational soul—designate one thing. This spirit, which in the terminology of the philosophers is the rational soul, embraces all beings, and as far as human ability permits discovers the realities of things and becomes cognizant of their peculiarities and effects, and of the qualities and properties of beings.” Some Answered Questions, p. 208

Read more: 55: SOUL, SPIRIT AND MIND [/quote]
#2302 Trailblazer, Tuesday at 7:13 PM

AGAIN, I do not think human intelligence has anything to do with religion. In other words, humans are not more intelligent than other animals because we are religious and other animals are not. Human intelligence is related to the human brain and how it operates, and the reason it operates the way it does is because humans have a rational soul. Other animals do not have a soul so they cannot thing rationally as humans can.

Ah, so once you have changed your mind about something, you don't later change it back to your original point of view?

No, not usually.

Depends. Had you seen the same kind of tactic to get out of a position for which there was no rational defense used by others in the past repeatedly?

I do not think like you do, as if I am in a debate to win, so I would never be looking for tactics you might use to get out of positions so I would not know if you had employed any tactics.

 

[Tiberius]

I cannot disagree with anything you said. Science is consistent whereas religion is not

Now, what about Truth. Is it a constant or not?

No, not usually.

Very well. I'm sure you'll understand, then, if I bring up any occasion where you go back to your original P.O.V. after changing it.

I do not think like you do, as if I am in a debate to win, so I would never be looking for tactics you might use to get out of positions so I would not know if you had employed any tactics.

My thinking is very simple.

I present an idea which I believe to represent reality as accurately as possible. I then present my reasons for holding that belief. If anyone disagrees, they can present their idea and explain why my idea is less accurate than theirs.

I, likewise, will explain why I find someone else's view less accurate than mine if I believe it is less accurate.

However, I am not trying to win and prove that my own view is the best. If someone presents an alternative view and I find that it is better than mine, I will abandon my original view and embrace the new view.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer: I believe God objectively exists!

Also Trailblazer: The purpose of religion is not to reflect objective truths about the universe.

So, if religion isn't here to provide any objective truths, how can you possibly claim that your God objectively exists?

The reason our wires get crossed is because of what you think I mean by what I say which is not what I mean.

When I said: "The purpose of religion is not to reflect objective truths about the universe" I meant that is not the purpose of religion, since I believe the purpose of religion is what I stated before:

“The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 215

God objectively exists, but the purpose of religion is not to provide any objective truths about God.

Yes they are.

You've claimed many objectively true facts about the universe as evidence that your religion is correct: Mr B really existed, he went to certain places, he made certain claims, etc.

I can point out many things in Star Trek that are also objectively true. The first manned landing on the moon was launched on a wednesday, for example. And yes, this prophecy was made BEFORE the mission was planned.

So if your factual statements support the untestable parts of your religion, then Star Trek's factual statements sup[poprt the untestable parts of my favorite TV franchise.

When I said they are not equivalent I was thinking of something entirely different from what you were thinking. I was thinking that rerligion is not equivalent ti a TV series. Do you see the problem?

Now that I understand how you were comparing the two I can see that they are equivalent, since the facts about Baha'u'llah, even though they are objectively true, are not testable any more than the facts about Star Trek.

So it's your "only verified in my mind" evidence, not REAL verified evidence.

I am not going to allow this go go off track again because it only leads to further misunderstandings.

What do you think the difference is between my "only verified in my mind" evidence and REAL verified evidence.
In other words, what does REAL verified evidence mean to you?