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

[viole]

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.

Simple. a good starter would be that all theists wake up tomorrow and believe in the same exact God.

That would, at least, show me that She decided to prove that She is not such a miserable communicator, after all.

ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

Simple. a good starter would be that all theists wake up tomorrow and believe in the same exact God.

That would, at least, show me that She decided to prove that She is not such a miserable communicator, after all.

ciao

- viole

I'm far more impressed that God can be so many different 'beings' to so many different people, and still be so profoundly meaningful and helpful to them all. You want a 'miracle', THAT'S a miracle!

 

[ratiocinator]

Neither I, nor any other human being needs justification to contemplate the purpose of our existence.

You can contemplate all you like but you can't presume that there even is a purpose.

I cannot open your eyes or mind for you. If you want to refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of theists on Earth relate themselves to a 'creator-god' that they perceive as being in active control of all that exists (with a 'plan' of some kind), then no one can stop you.

Now you've changed definition. What happened to it just being a mystery? Make up your mind!

I'm not in the business of denying what theists believe but to claim that such a being exists (or should be taken seriously) because of their beliefs would just be an argumentum ad populum fallacy (even if they believed in the same god, which they don't). The claim that there is such a creator god needs justification if you want to convince rational people that it is a reality. Back to logic 101 and the burden of proof.

 

[viole]

I'm far more impressed that God can be so many different 'beings' to so many different people, and still be do profoundly meaningful and helpful to them all. You want a 'miracle', THAT'S a miracle!

Yes, I am sure that Apollo worked wonders on people believing in Him, and the rest of the divine family. And that the same God managed to give so much meaning to the Mayas, after a few kids’ hearts have been pulled out of their chest for Him. Touching, really.

That is really nothing short of a miracle.

Hallelujah, I suppose.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ratiocinator]

I'm far more impressed that God can be so many different 'beings' to so many different people, and still be do profoundly meaningful and helpful to them all. You want a 'miracle', THAT'S a miracle!

Genuine laugh out loud! Comforting imaginary friends explains it perfectly well. Of course, one group may have got it right (it's not impossible) but that makes the others wrong. It's also possible that there's something there that they've all misinterpreted, but I see no reason at all to take these ideas seriously when there is a much simpler explanation.

 

[oldbadger]

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?

A grain of sand would do. A leaf. Tree? School kid? Anything or anyone.

The mere fact that anything exists is evidence that God exists, and as a Deist I perceive that every atom or tiniest force is a part of God. The only problem is that this God is so vast that it is as unaware of us as you are of a cell in your aorta yet it's still a part of you.

 

[ratiocinator]

The mere fact that anything exists is evidence that God exists, and as a Deist I perceive that every atom or tiniest force is a part of God.

Begging the question.

 

[oldbadger]

Begging the question.

No.
Answering the question.

 

[ratiocinator]

No.
Answering the question.

Evidence for god cannot rely on the assumption that god exists. The existence of things can only be considered evidence of god if you first assume that they couldn't exist unless god created them, which assumes god exists.

You've assumed your conclusion, which is called "begging the question" and it's a logical fallacy.

 

[PureX]

You can contemplate all you like but you can't presume that there even is a purpose.

Of course I can. Just as you can presume there isn't any. Though, why you would want to presume that is a mystery to me.

Now you've changed definition. What happened to it just being a mystery? Make up your mind!

Now you're just being childish. I guess that's what happens when you can't defend your own opinions and can't accept that they might be wrong, either. You just lash out blindly hoping to deflect attention away.

The claim that there is such a creator god needs justification if you want to convince rational people that it is a reality. Back to logic 101 and the burden of proof.

The claim has plenty of justification. (Not proof, just reasonable justification.) But you just won't accept any. And that's your problem to deal with. Many billions of other humans have, do, and will.

 

[PureX]

Genuine laugh out loud! Comforting imaginary friends explains it perfectly well. Of course, one group may have got it right (it's not impossible) but that makes the others wrong. It's also possible that there's something there that they've all misinterpreted, but I see no reason at all to take these ideas seriously when there is a much simpler explanation.

Do you really think being "right" is what matters?

"When a superior man hears of the Tao,
he immediately begins to embody it.
When an average man hears of the Tao,
he half believes it, half doubts it.
When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud.
If he didn't laugh,
it wouldn't be the Tao" - the Tao Te Ching
​

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know about "all" atheists... but do you understand why I'd want empirical evidence?

I mean, you are suggesting a God that empirically exists, right? Things with empirical existence leave empirical evidence of their existence, and generally, the more significant the thing, the greater the quality and quantity of evidence for it.

... but you're arguing that God - which would be the most significant thing in the universe if it were to exist - leaves no empirical evidence at all. To me, this doesn't add up.

What is empirical evidence?

Definition and explanation
Empirical evidence is the evidence that we directly observe and get from our senses. This might be contrasted to philosophical or theoretical reasoning, which can be done without any direct observation of ‘real life’.
https://conceptually.org/concepts/empirical-evidence.

God does leave empirical evidence. The religions of God that the Messengers of God establish that we can directly observe and get from our senses are the evidence that God exists.

“The greatest bestowal of God in the world of humanity is religion; for assuredly the divine teachings of religion are above all other sources of instruction and development to man. Religion confers upon man eternal life and guides his footsteps in the world of morality. It opens the doors of unending happiness and bestows everlasting honor upon the human kingdom. It has been the basis of all civilization and progress in the history of mankind.

We will therefore investigate religion, seeking from an unprejudiced standpoint to discover whether it is the source of illumination, the cause of development and the animating impulse of all human advancement. We will investigate independently, free from the restrictions of dogmatic beliefs, blind imitations of ancestral forms, and the influence of mere human opinion; for as we enter this question we will find some who declare that religion is a cause of uplift and betterment in the world, while others assert just as positively that it is a detriment and a source of degradation to mankind. We must give these questions thorough and impartial consideration so that no doubt or uncertainty may linger in our minds regarding them.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 270

From: RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION

 

[Trailblazer]

Whenever the word 'evidence' is used like that I take it to mean it as 'something that leads to a certain specific undeniable conclusion'.

That undeniable conclusion is reached only by people who recognize the evidence as evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

They can't be evidence.

You can't establish that someone is a Messenger of God until you've established God. Trying to argue that someone is a Messenger of God and then using that to establish the existence of God is begging the question.

I am not suggesting that anyone assume that God exists before they have any evidence, but since the Messengers of God are the only evidence they have to look at them to have evidence that God exists. We do not have to believe that God exists before we believe that the Messenger is speaking for God but we have to consider it possible that God exists.

In other words, one cannot FIRST establish that God exists BEFORE they believe in the Messenger of God since there is no way to know that God exists except by what the Messenger of God reveals about God.

What did it for you, out of curiosity? What convinced you that God exists?

Ultimately, it was the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is what convinced me that God exists.

I did not originally become a Baha'i because I believed in God, I became a Baha'i because I believed that the Baha'i Faith was a true religion. I did not think about whether Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or whether God exists back in those days. I only got serious in wanting to know about God about nine years ago.

What absolutely convinced me that God exists and allowed me to know about God and Messengers of God is the book entitled Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.

I first read and really understood that book in June 2014 and that was a turning point in my life.

 

[Trailblazer]

You've had chances to use logic to argue your beliefs and you did not use it.

I use logic all the time.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Sorry but no. Evidence does not have to be verifiable and that is not what makes it evidence.
There is evidence and there is verifiable evidence. All evidence is not verifiable evidence.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. ‘
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

 

[F1fan]

Nowhere does the burden of proof imply that if it is not sufficiently met, to your satisfaction, then untruth must then be presumed. Also, nowhere does the burden of proof mean that one's innate bias against the proposal must be somehow overwhelmed to meet the requirement of "proof".

Please take some time to consider both of these observations, because they are very important to any philosophical discussion or debate.

Sorry but the the rules of logic are what they are. It is a good rule. Anyone can make a a bogus claim and no one has to accept it as true. That means the claimant has to explain and demonstrate the truth of the claim. The logical default is that claims are not true, thus false.

The only people who would have a problem with this rule is those who have a claim they can't demonstrate is true or even probable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That undeniable conclusion is reached only by people who recognize the evidence as evidence.

There are different qualities of evidence. You could ask little Bobby why he believes something. His answer could be: "Because Jimmy says so.".

So little Bobby has evidence. Is it reliable evidence? Probably not. You have yet to give any evidence that qualifies as reliable. Here is a rough test:

If it is convincing to others that are not of your religion. it is very probably reliable evidence.

If it is not convincing to someone that is not being dishonest it is probably not reliable evidence.

 

[F1fan]

I use logic all the time.

You think you use logic. Your evidence for your claims has poor quality evidence, so it's not compelling. You offer no facts for the most substantive parts of your claims, namely that some sort of god exists. You often argue assuming a god exists, and this is an error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry but no. Evidence does not have to be verifiable and that is not what makes it evidence.
There is evidence and there is verifiable evidence. All evidence is not verifiable evidence.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. ‘
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

And again, this is a poor definition for this argument since that definition includes "Because Jimmy says so" on up.


One should not rely on unconvincing evidence in an argument. If that is all that one has that person is likely to be wrong.