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

[Subduction Zone]

Explain how God made him wear a red shirt.

If God is omnipotent then he can do anything that he wants. If he is omniscient he knows everything. God created the universe in which @Tiberius put on a red shirt. If he wanted it any differently he would have made ta different universe. You are claiming that God is to blame for everything wrong when you claim that he is omnipotent and omniscient.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have explained why the various religions contradict each other and it is a drop dead logical explanation.

Because the all-knowing God knew people would mess things up, but that's okay, because that's how he wanted it. I don't know why you claim it is "drop dead" logical. You know only other Baha'is agree with your logic. Or, was that a "belief' and not a "claim"?

 

[Tiberius]

I know this is difficult for you. It is difficult for every atheist I have ever known, and I have been posting about it to atheists for nine years. As I recall one atheist understood it on this forum, but unfortunately I forgot who he was.

How can God know today what shirt I will wear tomorrow if I can change it at any time? God still has knowledge of the future that can't be wrong. And if it can't be wrong, then what God has foreseen today MUST be what happens tomorrow. And that means I can't choose to do anything different.

Time only exists for humans on earth. God does not exist in time so there is no such thing as today and tomorrow for God.

God's knowledge surrounds the realities of all things simultaneously so everything that we have done are doing or will ever do is recorded in the Mind of God.

God always knew what color shirt you would choose because God is all-knowing but God's knowledge in no way determines what color shirt you will choose. You determine the color of the shirt by choosing it. You will chose the color of shirt God has always known you will choose simply because God has always known what color shirt you will choose.

I can't remember how many times I have told you that I never said that God's knowledge is what makes it happen. Why do you keep going back to that?

And I can tell you why it is difficult. Because it defies all reason and logic. You are telling me to believe two mutually incompatible things.

 

[Tiberius]

You will put on the red shirt, not because God made you put it on but because you chose to put it on.
You had free will to choose to put on the red shirt and you chose to put it on. God knew you would put it on because God is all-knowing.

I had no free will if I couldn't have done anything different!

 

[Trailblazer]

Very well. Would you please show me something Mr B said that is clear and unambiguous and directly presents knowledge that could not possibly have been known by people at the time?

I can only present what was not known by people of His time, I cannot say that it could not have possibly been known by people of his time.

Not only did Baha’u’llah know things He did not learn in any school, He also knew and predicted many things that later came to pass, things that were not known by people of his time. In this book is a list of 30 specific things Baha’u’llah knew and things He predicted that later came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

 

[Tiberius]

Please explain why it is a logical impossibility.

Okay.

God comes to me and says, "I know what colour shirt Trailblazer is going to wear tomorrow. She's going to wear the red shirt."

Now, this is God we are talking about here. If he says he knows it, then he KNOWS it and he can't possibly be wrong.

So, tell me. Can you choose to wear the blue shirt tomorrow?

If yes, then God's statement to me was wrong, and we've already established that God can't be wrong because he unerringly knows the future.

If no, then you do not have free will.

And don't start on the "But God doesn't make it happen" excuses, because no one is saying that God IS making it happen.

 

[Trailblazer]

I can't remember how many times I have told you that I never said that God's knowledge is what makes it happen. Why do you keep going back to that?

And I can tell you why it is difficult. Because it defies all reason and logic. You are telling me to believe two mutually incompatible things.

Let's start over. If God's knowledge is not what makes it happen, what do you think makes it happen?
What are the two mutually incompatible things you think I m telling you to believe?

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay.

God comes to me and says, "I know what colour shirt Trailblazer is going to wear tomorrow. She's going to wear the red shirt."

Now, this is God we are talking about here. If he says he knows it, then he KNOWS it and he can't possibly be wrong.

So, tell me. Can you choose to wear the blue shirt tomorrow?

If yes, then God's statement to me was wrong, and we've already established that God can't be wrong because he unerringly knows the future.

If no, then you do not have free will.

And don't start on the "But God doesn't make it happen" excuses, because no one is saying that God IS making it happen.

You are dead in the water because you used your free will to choose to wear the red shirt.
Had you chosen to wear a blue shirt tomorrow, God would have known that was what you would choose.

 

[Tiberius]

You are in the dog house right now because your personal opinions about God and religion are not scientific nor are they verifiable. You did not think I was going to catch that? I caught it immediately.

And what claims did I make about God that were allegedly verifiable or scientific? Most of my comments about God have been me explaining why I disagree with your point of view. I haven't said much about my own views of God at all.

Oh no you don't. You do not rely upon testable and verifiable evidence for anything you are saying about God or religion since there is no such evidence for God or religion.

You have committed a strawman fallacy.

My position is NOT there there is any kind of verifiable or scientific evidence that God does not exist.

My position is that there is no verifiable or scientific evidence that points to God, and thus there is no valid reason to believe in him.

There's a whopping big difference between the two.

One says, "I have evidence that God does not exist, and thus I do not believe God exists." This is the position you are claiming I have. It is NOT the position I have.

the other says, "I see no valid evidence to support the existence of God, therefore I do not beleive that God exists." This is the position I actually hold.

I have explained why the various religions contradict each other and it is a drop dead logical explanation.

I have seen little to no logic in your explanation.

My sugested explanation - that it's all bunk - is much simpler and more logical.

Religion does not appeal to my emotions, it only appeals to my higher rational mind. If I lived by my emotions I would not be on this forum talking to atheists. I would be doing something enjoyable, something hedonistic.

I don't see how you can say religion appeals to your rational mind when by your own admission there is no objective evidence at all for the supernatural claims religion makes.

 

[Tiberius]

You are dead in the water because you used your free will to choose to wear the red shirt.
Had you chosen to wear a blue shirt, God would have known that was what you would choose.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about YOUR shirt choices, not mine.

Your ability to follow the conversation seems to be dropping lately.

 

[Tiberius]

I can only present what was not known by people of His time, I cannot say that it could not have possibly been known by people of his time.

Not only did Baha’u’llah know things He did not learn in any school, He also knew and predicted many things that later came to pass, things that were not known by people of his time. In this book is a list of 30 specific things Baha’u’llah knew and things He predicted that later came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

So then, despite your claim in post 2410, it CAN'T be checked. And thus we lose yet another reason to accept the claim as true.

 

[Trailblazer]

I had no free will if I couldn't have done anything different!

You could have done something different in which case God would have known you would do something different.

 

[Tiberius]

Let's start over. If God's knowledge is not what makes it happen, what do you think makes it happen?

The mechanism is irrelevant to the discussion.

What are the two mutually incompatible things you think I m telling you to believe?

That I have free choice YET there is only one possible outcome - the one that has been foreseen.

 

[Trailblazer]

What are you talking about? I'm talking about YOUR shirt choices, not mine.

Your ability to follow the conversation seems to be dropping lately.

Lol, who cares whose shirt choices they are, the principle is the same.
Deflection will not get you anywhere.

 

[Trailblazer]

The mechanism is irrelevant to the discussion.

That's deflection.
No it is not irrelevant because you are saying we have no free will. If the shirt color was not chosen by you and put on your body then how did it get on your body? Did little fairies put it there?

That I have free choice YET there is only one possible outcome - the one that has been foreseen.

You made a free choice to determine which outcome it would be. There was not only one possible outcome but there will be only one outcome because there cannot be two different outcomes. If there had been a different outcome then God would have foreseen that outcome instead of the other one.

 

[Trailblazer]

So then, despite your claim in post 2410, it CAN'T be checked. And thus we lose yet another reason to accept the claim as true.

It can be checked if you want to go to all the trouble to check it.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what claims did I make about God that were allegedly verifiable or scientific? Most of my comments about God have been me explaining why I disagree with your point of view. I haven't said much about my own views of God at all.

And whenever you said you disagreed you made claims about God and religion which were not verifiable or scientific, and as such they were only personal opinions.

You have committed a strawman fallacy.

My position is NOT there there is any kind of verifiable or scientific evidence that God does not exist.

My position is that there is no verifiable or scientific evidence that points to God, and thus there is no valid reason to believe in him.

There's a whopping big difference between the two.

One says, "I have evidence that God does not exist, and thus I do not believe God exists." This is the position you are claiming I have. It is NOT the position I have.

the other says, "I see no valid evidence to support the existence of God, therefore I do not believe that God exists." This is the position I actually hold.

No, that is not what I said at all. I know what your position is so I am making a straw man.

Let's stay on task. You said that unlike me you rely upon testable and verifiable evidence and I said that you do not rely upon testable and verifiable evidence for anything you are saying about God or religion since there is no such evidence for God or religion. THAT was the context.

I have seen little to no logic in your explanation.

My suggested explanation - that it's all bunk - is much simpler and more logical.

That all religion is bunk is not logical at all because religion is the backbone of society and the cause of all great civilizations, including morality, so a logical person would try to somehow reconcile all the great religions and figure out why religious people do not agree.

I don't see how you can say religion appeals to your rational mind when by your own admission there is no objective evidence at all for the supernatural claims religion makes.

Anyone who would expect to procure objective evidence for supernatural claims is drop dead illogical.

I do not need objective evidence for the supernatural claims because I have objective evidence that shows that the Baha'i Faith is true and if the religion is true then the supernatural claims are also true. That is how logic works.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what else does a person need?

Evidence.

You convincing yourself that the claim is accurate does not count as evidence.

I never said it was.

What I would consider evidence would be clear and unambiguous scientific knowledge that could not have been known by the people of the time. If Mr B had spoken of quantum mechanics, that sort of thing. Also a clear an unambiguous prophecy. For example, if Mr B spoke of the sinking of the Titanic, or World War 1, since both of those happened after his death.

Baha’u’llah foresaw WWI and WWII in His Tablet to Kaiser Wilhelm I.

“O KING of Berlin! Give ear unto the Voice calling from this manifest Temple: Verily, there is none other God but Me, the Everlasting, the Peerless, the Ancient of Days. Take heed lest pride debar thee from recognizing the Dayspring of Divine Revelation, lest earthly desires shut thee out, as by a veil, from the Lord of the Throne above and of the earth below. Thus counselleth thee the Pen of the Most High. He, verily, is the Most Gracious, the All-Bountiful. Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power (Napoleon III), and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? Whither are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. Wherefore, disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful brought them down from their palaces to their graves.Be warned, be of them who reflect… O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.”

Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 39

Exactly!

Now, we have already determined that things which are verifiable, like the length of a piece of rope, are agreed on by everyone who examines the evidence. Surely if religious faith was verifiable there will also be agreement. And yet there is widespread disagreement. Thus, we can conclude that religious faith is not verifiable in any objective manner.

Agreed?

Yes, I agree.

True. But it does mean that we are totally unable to determine which - if any - parts are objectively true.

That's right if you are referring to the older religions that cannot be verified, but it is not true of the Baha'i Faith as the history can be determined as objectively true.

I disagree that there could be many interpretations that are true. If something is objectively true, then there is only one correct interpretation. There are not, after all, several different interpretations about how long a piece of rope is.

Scriptures can have more than one interpretation hat is true since the same scripture can mean many different things.

And as I've said, even if there is a correct interpretation for a particular religious faith, we have no way of determining which interpretation that is. Or even if there is a correct interpretation at all.

We do have a way, because of what the Baha'i Faith has revealed about the older religions and what is correct and incorrect.

So we can not conclude that any religious faith is objectively true, and we agree that religious faith cannot be verified.

We can verify that it is true by independent investigation of the religion, including the facts about Baha'u'llah and facts about the history of the Baha'i Faith and also facts about the Baha'i Faith in general, its teachings, etc.

Well then, since you admit you were making a declaration, let's not go with the old, "I'm just stating my beliefs, not making any claims" excuse anymore, okay?

Everything I say is not a declaration, some of it is just stating my beliefs.

 

[Truthseeker]

Correction on gore on the banks of the Rhine:

O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.

In one of His Tablets written before the first World War (1914–1918), ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explained that Bahá’u’lláh’s reference to having seen the banks of the Rhine “covered with gore” related to the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871), and that there was more suffering to come. In God Passes By Shoghi Effendi states that the “oppressively severe treaty” that was imposed on Germany following its defeat in the first World War “provoked ‘the lamentations [of Berlin]’ which half a century before, had been ominously prophesied.”
Bahá’u’lláh, "The Kitáb-i-Aqdas", 90

Contrary to what is popularly believed among Baha'is, the "another turn" is World War I and the oppressive treaty after that was the "lamentations of Berlin".

No one noticed that "we have seen you" is in the past tense.

 

[Trailblazer]

Correction on gore on the banks of the Rhine:

O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.

In one of His Tablets written before the first World War (1914–1918), ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explained that Bahá’u’lláh’s reference to having seen the banks of the Rhine “covered with gore” related to the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871), and that there was more suffering to come. In God Passes By Shoghi Effendi states that the “oppressively severe treaty” that was imposed on Germany following its defeat in the first World War “provoked ‘the lamentations [of Berlin]’ which half a century before, had been ominously prophesied.”
Bahá’u’lláh, "The Kitáb-i-Aqdas", 90

Contrary to what is popularly believed among Baha'is, the "another turn" is World War I and the oppressive treaty after that was the "lamentations of Berlin".

No one noticed that "we have seen you" is in the past tense.

Thanks Duane, now I am going to have to edit all my Word documents where I say it is WWI and WWII...
But thanks, it is better to have the correct information.