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

[ratiocinator]

Well for your information I have took The Big Theory back a further two stages in history . I have ''Gods'' equation and can explain how the high dense state was formed . However , in travelling back two further stages than The Big Bang , I found the scientific possibility of a God...

Oh, don't be shy, do tell! And remember to invite me to your Nobel prize ceremony.

...unable to explain energies rudiment of existence any way other than a miracle .

Oh, so it was a failure.

Electromagnetic fields (space-time energy) , electromagnetic radiation (space-time energy) and space are observably indistinguishable...

Nope, they are very, very easy to distinguish. In fact, trying to unite space-time (gravity) with electromagnetism, and the other two forces of nature, is one of the great unsolved problems in physics. So claiming they are observationally indistinguishable is pure comedy.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Oh, don't be shy, do tell! And remember to invite me to your Nobel prize ceremony.


Oh, so it was a failure.


Nope, they are very, very easy to distinguish. In fact, trying to unite space-time (gravity) with electromagnetism, and the other two forces of nature, is one of the great unsolved problems in physics. So claiming they are observationally indistinguishable is pure comedy.

It wasn't a fail to reach the truth .

Detection and/or reaction differs from observably indistinguishable . You with your own eyes see before you ,thou shall not bare false witness with your own eyes , thou cannot see the Earths magnetic field that is before your eyes ,thou cannot see the light that passes through the magnetic field and space , thou cannot observably distinguish the difference between the space and the light .

Sorry I hit you with ''God'' mode , sometimes putting it differently , helps a different neurological reference frame see the difference . The interwoven fabric of space-time energy is observably indistinguishable from space . The space itself is independent of space-time energy .

ok ?

 

[ratiocinator]

Detection and/or reaction differs from observably indistinguishable .

No. If you detect things differently, that is observationally distinguishable.

You with your own eyes see before you ,thou shall not bare false witness with your own eyes , thou cannot see the Earths magnetic field that is before your eyes ,thou cannot see the light that passes through the magnetic field and space , thou cannot observably distinguish the difference between the space and the light .

Just putting some 'thou's into it isn't going to make nonsense any more sensible.

Sorry I hit you with ''God'' mode , sometimes putting it differently , helps a different neurological reference frame see the difference .

Don't be sorry, it's just amusing; and "neurological reference frame" appears to be just more BS.

The interwoven fabric of space-time energy is observably indistinguishable from space . The space itself is independent of space-time energy .

Still gibberish.

Are you just used to people who know nothing about science being impressed when you use 'sciency' language, or something?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

No. If you detect things differently, that is observationally distinguishable.


Just putting some 'thou's into it isn't going to make nonsense any more sensible.


Don't be sorry, it's just amusing; and "neurological reference frame" appears to be just more BS.


Still gibberish.

Are you just used to people who know nothing about science being impressed when you use 'sciency' language, or something?

You are quite confused in your own neurological reference frame and for some reason trying to create argument over axiom observation . You know very well that the Earths magnetic field you observe with your eyes between objects is indistinguishable from space .
A neurological reference frame is the information that can be accessed in brain functions of living creatures . You are a human with a neurological reference frame that has been increased in information over time by education and observation .
I have just added information to your very own neurological reference frame by explaining to you what it meant!

Anyway back on subject , ourselves , a second miracle .

There is noway we started has pond life , it is as if we are an upgrade to the earth .

 

[Trailblazer]

"And God spake all these words, saying...
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

So even god makes false statements about religion.

God did not speak those words, someone wrote that God spoke those words.

 

[ratiocinator]

You know very well that the Earths magnetic field you observe with your eyes between objects is indistinguishable from space .

Of course it isn't. I can't detect the magnetic field at all with my eyes alone, you need additional instrumentation. On the other hand, we detect space by having two eyes, and, no, that doesn't mean it's indistinguishable from light as I could also use different instruments to detect space, and also by being able to walk through it in total darkness.

Anyway back on subject , ourselves , a second miracle .

There is noway we started has pond life , it is as if we are an upgrade to the earth .

So, having demonstrated your ignorance of physics, we now move on to biology and evolution. Evidence for common descent and for evolution is overwhelming.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles
Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Articles
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences
The Evidence For Evolution: A Succinct Introduction For Denialists

And so on, and so on....

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Of course it isn't. I can't detect the magnetic field at all with my eyes alone, you need additional instrumentation.

.

The same additional instruments you need to detect light ! The light passing through space you cannot see with your eyes because likewise to the earths magnetic field , the light is transparent .

As I said observably indistinguishable , observable detection by device is a different subject .

You agree then change your mind , why ?

 

[Trailblazer]

If I can choose then clearly no deity exists that can know which ONE choice I will make.

Why?

 

[Trailblazer]

So, how do you know if the voice in your head is really god, or just a psychotic event?
And what do you say to those who also use your explanation to justify their own claims of knowing god's will?

I do not hear any voices in my head.

If people say they know God's will I might ask them how they know it.

 

[ratiocinator]

The same additional instruments you need to detect light ! The light passing through space you cannot see with your eyes because likewise to the earths magnetic field , the light is transparent .

You really should stop digging. I can detect light with my eyes, and by instrumentation. You need different instruments to detect a magnetic field. I can detect the distortion of space-time because I'm being held on the surface of the earth by it. Exact measurements are able to confirm the models we have of both, and easily distinguish between the two.

As I said observably indistinguishable , observable detection by device is a different subject .

No, it isn't. Almost all observation in science is done with instrumentation, even of things we can directly detect with our senses.

You agree then change your mind , why ?

I didn't change my mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

It does mean that they can all be wrong.
It also means that the vast majority are definitely wrong.
So how is a religionist to know if they are wrong or not, given that they all genuinely believe they are right, and the chances are that they are actually wrong?

You are correct. Logically speaking, they could all be wrong, or some of them could be partly right or only one of them could be right.

I believe that the vast majority of religions are right about the eternal spiritual truths, but they are wrong about many things, such as the nature of God and the afterlife, the return of Christ/the coming of the Messiah, and what God's will is for this age.

How does a religionist know if they are right or wrong? That is a very good question. They cannot really know, they can only believe.

However, that does not mean that their religion is not true. I believe that all the religions that were revealed by God through Messengers are true religions, but that they have been corrupted by man over time, so what people believe now is not all true.

I believe that the latest religion that has been revealed by God is the Baha'i Faith and that it has not been corrupted and it has the message from God for this age, so it makes logical sense to follow this religion and not the older religions that have outdated messages. Those religions were revealed for another age in history, not for this age.

 

[Trailblazer]

Question begging. We are attempting to determine if we can make a free choice, so you can't simply assert it as a first premise.

That humans have free will is not a premise, it is a belief, not only my religious belief, but from what I have reasoned out myself. It is not begging the question because it does not lack support.

Begs the question is a term that comes from formal logic. It's a translation of the Latin phrase petitio principii, and it's used to mean that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support.
Begging the question - Wikipedia

If god had not changed his mind, and Abraham had actually obeyed him and killed Isaac, would he have been guilty of murder?

I do not believe God was planning to kill Isaac, I believe that was just a story written by men to convey a certain spiritual truth.

Which leads us to exactly the same place, god having infallible foreknowledge of what we will do, meaning we cannot do anything different.

God having foreknowledge ONLY means that we will do what God knows we will do. If we had chosen to do something different God would have known that we were going to do that.

This is not that difficult, unless you have your mind made up so you refuse to think any differently.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The available evidence that is available is based on localised observations , we do not know what is beyond our observations . There is possibilities of almost anything outside of our vision in {x^n,y^n,z^n}
space

Pretty much anything is possible.
The question is, is it probable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You may want to choose it, but the want and will would not be free-will or a choice. It would be an illusion of free-will.

That's absurd..
..either you want to choose something or you don't.
There might be a complex reason why you choose something, but that is a different issue.
want means want.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no "absolute" free will.
In reality we have partial free will, depending on the context.

I agree, there is no absolute free will, because we cannot choose to do anything we might want to do, since we are limited by our capacities and life circumstances.

Humans have the will/ability to make choices based upon their desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. How free they are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints. However, we have the ability to make choices.

Under a god with infallible omniscience who wills and decrees the outcome of all events, we have no free will.
Hope this helped.

It would be true that we have no free will under a God who wills and decrees the outcome of all events, but there is no reason to believe that God wills and decrees the outcome of all events, since that cannot be true if free will exists. Moreover if God did that then humans would be no more than puppets on a string, God's robots. If humans could not make any choices and learn from them this life would be without any purpose.

That said, I believe that some things that happen to us are decreed by God and we cannot change what God had decreed if it is an irrevocable decree, but not everything is decreed by God and even some things that have been decreed are not irrevocably decreed.

“Know thou, O fruit of My Tree, that the decrees of the Sovereign Ordainer, as related to fate and predestination, are of two kinds. Both are to be obeyed and accepted. The one is irrevocable, the other is, as termed by men, impending. To the former all must unreservedly submit, inasmuch as it is fixed and settled. God, however, is able to alter or repeal it. As the harm that must result from such a change will be greater than if the decree had remained unaltered, all, therefore, should willingly acquiesce in what God hath willed and confidently abide by the same.

The decree that is impending, however, is such that prayer and entreaty can succeed in averting it.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 133

He says it can succeed in averting it, not that it will succeed. It will only succeed if God chooses to remove the impending decree.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I said: Only one outcome is possible, yes.
The choice that you WANT to choose.

That isn't logically sound.
The option I want to choose isn't necessarily the one I choose.

Why? Why would you NOT choose the one you want?

 

[Trailblazer]

The existence of some sort of non-specific supernatural force is a possibility, but highly unlikely given all the available evidence.
The existence of the gods of religion as described in scripture is not a possibility.

I agree that the anthropomorphic God described in the Old Testament is not a possibility, since it was created by men. However, I do not believe that the God described in all scripture is an impossibility since I believe that the God described in Baha'i scripture is the one true God of all the religions.

 

[Trailblazer]

So faced with two choices, an omniscient deity knows I will choose a or b. Priceless....

It is priceless since it is the very truth. If you disagree please explain why.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah now I get it, sorry for the confusion. Your omniscient deity knows what we will choose to do, but AFTER we've done it.

No wait that's just a human being?

That is NOT what I said.
I said: "No, you were only bound to wear that shirt after you chose to wear it. God knew you would choose it because God is all-knowing."

Note the past tense - God knew. That means that God knew what shirt you would choose to wear BEFORE you chose to wear it.

 

[Trailblazer]

... had god not fixed that "choice" through his infallible omniscience.

There. That should put this to bed.

Please prove that ... God fixed that "choice" through his infallible omniscience.