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

[muhammad_isa]

That means, in turn, that the future must be fixed

Why have you bolded this statement?
This does not negate free-will.
You won't get out of it that easy

 

[Sheldon]

Nobody can confirm that as a fact, they can only look at the evidence and confirm it in their own mind.

This evidence is never actually presented, it's alluded to, claimed to exist, implied and inferred, but never ever presented?

Claims are not evidence, and religious texts can no more evidence the claims they contain, than the Harry Potter books can evidence wizardry.

"If ifs and ands were pots and pans".... etc etc etc

 

[Sheldon]

Why have you bolded this statement?

IN answer to your question.

This does not negate free-will.

It certainly would.

You won't get out of it that easy

Get out of what, it was your claim that "the future must be fixed." If you can't see what that means for the misnomer of free will, then that's not my problem at all. I don't believe free will exists anyway, we have some autonomy governed by multiple factors of influence.

If you want to test the limit of your autonomy, a very simple test would be to hold your breath. Or did you think breathing was a choice you made? Try never sleeping again, see how that works out.

 

[Tiberius]

So why wouldn't it be evidence for God if Baha'u'llah described knowledge that the people of His time could not possibly have had?

Well, now, the issue is this...

Is he really communicating information that the people of that time couldn't have had, or are you taking something he said that was vague and could be interpretted in many different ways and concluding that the one particular interpretation that could not be known MUST be the right interpretation?

 

[Tiberius]

There was no IF because that post was in response to something else you said earlier.

Tiberius said: How can you claim that God objectively exists if you have no objective evidence that God exists?

It is not an IF to me because it is a simple to me that Messengers of God exist. However, the hypothetical IF/THEN statement was necessary to make my point in the post you are now responding to.

Well, I'm glad to see that you were able to go back and follow the conversation to that point. It proves that you are capable of doing so, so I don't want to see you using the "I can't remember what we were talking about" thing anymore, okay?

And we still have that very large IF in there.

I brought it up because I thought you were saying that a man claiming to be a Messenger of God could not be objective evidence of God because of what you said below, so I was trying to demonstrate how a man claiming to be a Messenger of God could actually be a Messenger of God.

Tiberius said: No they aren't objective evidence that there is a God and they are not objective evidence that God sends messengers, since people can claim that they are messengers from God even if there is no God, and even if there is a God, people can still claim they are messengers sent by him even if God never sends messengers at all.

No, my point was that a person simply claiming something is not sufficient reason to accept their claim.

If a person claims to be a messenger from God, then that claim by itself is not sufficient to conclude that they actually are a messenger from God.

I fully agree. That is an extraordinary claim so it requires extraordinary evidence. Now all we need to do is decide what would constitute that evidence.

I agree. What would you suggest counts as such evidence?

I agree, making guesses as to a person's motivations and intentions would be speculation, but that is only one thing I suggested you do. What I said before that was "All you can do is look at the facts in their entirety and try to figure out what they mean."

And me asking myself why a particular person would do a particular thing is NOT looking at facts. It is asking me to make a speculation.

It says nothing about the accuracy of Person A's result, because:

Person A could be right and Persons B, C, D and E could all be wrong..... or
Person A could be wrong and Persons B, C, D and E could all be right..... or
Person A and B could be right and Persons C, D and E could all be wrong..... or
Person A and B could be wrong and Persons C, D and E could all be right.....
etc., etc., etc.

And what if each person got a completely different result?

When we do this with things that we know are objective - the length of a piece of rope, for example - we see agreement among all the people. When we look at things that are just subjkectyive opinion, we see exactly this kind of disparity.

Thus, the fact that there are so many different interpretations of religion is evidence that religion is just made up. It is not objective truth.

That was in response to a different post so that is why I answered it differently.

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

In my answer I was declaring "God objectively exists..."

Doesn't matter, you still said it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It certainly would..

Err .. no.

Think about it.
We perceive time as flowing from the past, through the present, towards the future.
i.e. the future is hidden from us

What we perceive as the future is not hidden from God.
A simple example of the relativity of time was demonstrated by Einstein, so it is not really that incredible to believe.

The fact that God is aware of the future IN NO WAY takes our free-will from us.

Get out of what, it was your claim that "the future must be fixed."

The future IS fixed .. but not by God. It is about perception.
We perceive that the past "has already happened", and accept that to be fixed. The future is EXACTLY the same .. fixed.
The past was fixed by our actions .. and so is the future !

I don't believe free will exists anyway, we have some autonomy governed by multiple factors of influence.

That is a separate issue. It is about the definition of free-will.
I don't think anybody is saying that we have complete control over our lives.

 

[Tiberius]

@muhammad_isa just a reminder that I answered your question to me in post 2359. I'd appreciate it if you could return the favour. Choose any of the arguments you liosted and I'll explain why it's not a valid argument for God.

 

[Trailblazer]

This evidence is never actually presented.

I presented the evidence numerous times.

Claims are not evidence.

I know that and that is not what I have presented.

 

[muhammad_isa]

@muhammad_isa just a reminder that I answered your question to me in post 2359. I'd appreciate it if you could return the favour. Choose any of the arguments you liosted and I'll explain why it's not a valid argument for God.

I can't answer you.
You gave me an example of what you'd accept as evidence..
i.e. some scientific evidence in scripture that wasn't known at the time

I can't think of anything.
Scripture is part of the humanities, and not science

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, now, the issue is this...

Is he really communicating information that the people of that time couldn't have had, or are you taking something he said that was vague and could be interpreted in many different ways and concluding that the one particular interpretation that could not be known MUST be the right interpretation?

In most cases there is only one way to interpret what He said because it was straightforward.

Whether anyone else knew what He knew could be checked. It certainly was not common knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, I'm glad to see that you were able to go back and follow the conversation to that point. It proves that you are capable of doing so, so I don't want to see you using the "I can't remember what we were talking about" thing anymore, okay?

The only reason I am now able to go back is because I just got a new used laptop that is very fast. My other laptop was on its last leg so I was barely limping along, but God heard my cries and He answered them so I found a really good laptop.

That just goes to show that you should not make assumptions regarding why I do things as I do and insinuate I can do things just because you think I can do them.

And we still have that very large IF in there.

I already admitted to that many posts back in case you forgot.

No, my point was that a person simply claiming something is not sufficient reason to accept their claim.

If a person claims to be a messenger from God, then that claim by itself is not sufficient to conclude that they actually are a messenger from God.

Well, obviously that is true as otherwise we would be believing the claims if every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

I agree. What would you suggest counts as such evidence?

You already know what I consider to be evidence but it was not sufficient for you so you will have to stipulate what would be sufficient, and not something that is impossible to procure, something realistic.

And me asking myself why a particular person would do a particular thing is NOT looking at facts. It is asking me to make a speculation.

No, it is just asking you to think about it because that thought process could lead you to think about possibilities you had not thought of before.

And what if each person got a completely different result?

When we do this with things that we know are objective - the length of a piece of rope, for example - we see agreement among all the people.

It is obvious why people agree on material things like the length of a rope, because we an see and measure them. They are verifiable, so how could people disagree?

When we look at things that are just subjectivity opinion, we see exactly this kind of disparity.
Thus, the fact that there are so many different interpretations of religion is evidence that religion is just made up. It is not objective truth.

That is completely illogical. Just because there are different interpretations of a religion that does not mean that the religion is made up and that it contains no objective truth.

Just because there are different interpretations of a religion that does not mean that one interpretation is not correct as I pointed out in my previous post. One or many interpretations of a religion could be correct.

There is no way the objective facts about a religion will ever be viewed the same way because people are different so they will view them differently. Religion is not as simple as something we can see and measure like the length of a rope or any other scientifically verifiable thing.

Doesn't matter, you still said it.

So what? There was a reason I said it ans I did not deny it.

 

[KWED]

Why have you bolded this statement?
This does not negate free-will.

Ah, the old "Just because we must do what god knows we will do, doesn't mean we can't do something different" argument.

You won't get out of it that easy

 

[Sheldon]

Err .. no. Think about it....The future IS fixed .. but not by God.

That means, in turn, that the future must be fixed .. is that correct?
Yes, it must be, as it means God knows what we all choose to do.

That would negate free will, and its you who needs to "think about it" as it's pretty hard to miss what you keep saying.

free will

noun

1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate;

 

[Sheldon]

I understand that you are arguing that God cannot interact with the universe, but that is not correct.

That is a falsifiable claim, so it is testable as a deity that intervenes in the universe would leave data to be examined. Can you demsonrate any for your claim? Beyond pointing at stuff and making the unevidenced assertion that god did it, of course.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That would negate free will, and its you who needs to "think about it" as it's pretty hard to miss what you keep saying.

free will

noun

1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate;

Ha ha!
You are so sure of yourself.
..and there was me thinking that you believed in the power of science and logic..

I think we'll have to take "baby-steps"..

Is it correct that most people accept that we are free to choose say, A or B?
Most people will say that we are.
Some people claim that we aren't, and we only think that we are choosing it,..

This is pretty silly in my opinion, as that means that people who drive down the highway are not really driving their vehicles, as they are not making any decisions to steer or brake etc.
..which leads to the question "who is driving the vehicles?"

..so which of the above positions do you take?
Are we free to choose or not? [ assume God does not exist ]

 

[KWED]

No .. Almighty God created the universe.
The universe is a space-time continuum.
It follows that He is not subject to time.

But we are subject to time, and we are on the receiving end of god's interference.

Now, I understand that you are arguing that God cannot interact with the universe, but that is not correct.

Erm, the exact opposite. God does interact with this universe, by necessity.

I would like to know how you can understand with such confidence about an infinite God, with your finite mind

It is religionists who claim to know the mind of god. I am merely responding within the context of those claims.

 

[KWED]

Ha ha!
You are so sure of yourself.
..and there was me thinking that you believed in the power of science and logic..

I think we'll have to take "baby-steps"..

Oh dear. You clearly (and ironically) don't understand the basic concepts at play here.

Is it correct that most people accept that we are free to choose say, A or B?
Most people will say that we are.

It depends on the context of those choices.

Some people claim that we aren't, and we only think that we are choosing it,..

It is true that, to an extent, we merely have the illusion of free will. At least some of our "choices" are actually determined to a degree by a chain of preceding events.

This is pretty silly in my opinion, as that means that people who drive down the highway are not really driving their vehicles, as they are not making any decisions to steer or brake etc.
..which leads to the question "who is driving the vehicles?"

The only silly thing here is your silly analogy.

..so which of the above positions do you take?

False dichotomy.

Are we free to choose or not? [ assume God does not exist ]

Depends.

 

[KWED]

The fact that God is aware of the future IN NO WAY takes our free-will from us.

Does god see just one future, or does he see every possible future that results from every possible choice made by every person?

The future IS fixed .. but not by God. It is about perception.
We perceive that the past "has already happened", and accept that to be fixed. The future is EXACTLY the same .. fixed.
The past was fixed by our actions .. and so is the future !

Regardless of who fixes the future, or why it is fixed, if it is fixed then we do not have the ability to control or change our own destiny. God has created a universe where we are basically automatons following a predetermined programme to an inevitable conclusion.
So what is the point?

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah, the old "Just because we must do what god knows we will do, doesn't mean we can't do something different" argument.

We can't do something different than what God knows we will do but that is only because what we will do is identical to what God knows we will do, but that does not mean that God determines what we will do by His foreknowledge. God's foreknowledge does not cause anything to happen. We cause our own actions by choosing to act and acting upon what we choose. God does not make us do anything by knowing what we will do, that is completely illogical.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

 

[muhammad_isa]

It depends on the context of those choices.

Oh please .. go on .. choose one. Do you choose A or B?
..and please don't answer 'neither' or AB

The only silly thing here is your silly analogy.

What is silly about it?