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

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said:
Ah, not just TB then, oh dear. IF a deity existed and knew what I would do before I do it, that would mean I had no other choices.

Incidentally didn't you say this deity could stop us if it wanted? That would make it complicit in every crime ever committed. Then again it is claimed to have created parasites and diseases that cause unimaginable suffering, so I'm just glad there isn't a shred of objective evidence for any such deity.

What is the epistemological status of the bold?

You claimed you are just glad. How do you know that? Or don't you know it and it is just a subjective feeling without objective evidence?

The part that you emboldened in my post has no relevance here, if you want to discuss my post then by all means do so, but if you want a broad discussion on the limits of epistemology then start a separate thread, or at least offer a context that has some relevance to what i said, as it is very distracting when you do this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You've lost me sorry, and this has zero relevance to my post.

Ah, not just TB then, oh dear. IF a deity existed and knew what I would do before I do it, that would mean I had no other choices.

Incidentally didn't you say this deity could stop us if it wanted? That would make it complicit in every crime ever committed. Then again it is claimed to have created parasites and diseases that cause unimaginable suffering, so I'm just glad there isn't a shred of objective evidence for any such deity.

Here you go.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The part that you emboldened in my post has no relevance here, if you want to discuss my post then by all means do so, but if you want a broad discussion on the limits of epistemology then start a separate thread, or at least offer a context that has some relevance to what i said, as it is very distracting when you do this.

So you what? You wrote something because of what?

 

[Sheldon]

It doesn't matter whether a diety is involved or not !
If the future is a fixed block as is the past, we have the same scenario.

I'm inclined to disagree, but you are also shifting the goalposts as this discussion involves specific claims about a deity.

The fact that you are choosing what is in the fixed block does not mean that you haven't made the choice of your own free-will. Do you consider that any decisions that you made in the past were illusionary? If not, why not? It is a fixed block.

It is axiomatic I cannot change the past, your and TB's claim about a deity knowing what we will choose would mean I cannot change the future as well.

You will probably say "ah, well that is different, as it's already happened". Explain to me HOW it is different.

You just explained how it is different, it already happened in a linear timescale.

Einstein showed that time is relative to your frame of reference. That effectively means that "the present" is a perception that only applies TO OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE. It is just a perception.

You're the one making claims that are outside of that frame of reference, not me. If you are claiming Einstein's work evidences the possibility of an omniscient deity then I'm going to need a citation, as he and the entire world seem to have missed that news.



What you seem to not understand, is that whether a diety exists or not, is irrelevant.
It is all about the concept of a block universe.

 

[Sheldon]

Here you go.

Here I go what? All you did was quote my post?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here I go what? All you did was quote my post?

So that you are glad, is that rational and decided with logic?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You just explained how it is different, it already happened in a linear timescale..

"It already happened" is not a good enough explanation, I'm afraid.
When we say "the future", we are referring to the block of time that, as far as we are concerned [in our frame of reference], has to be filled in with events.

it HAS to be a fixed block .. it can be nothing else.
It is just that we don't know what it is.

Whether a diety exists or not DOES NOT AFFECT THIS in the slightest. We make our choices, and they become the past.

 

[Sheldon]

So you what? You wrote something because of what?

So that you are glad, is that rational and decided with logic?

That has no relevance to my post. You do this every time, if you want to a broad discussion on epistemology or logic start a thread, or discuss them only in the context of how they apply to this discussion, but don't hijack every post like this please.

Can you even tell me what my original post said, or its relevance to what I was responding to?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That has no relevance to my post. You do this every time, if you ant to discuss epistolary or logic start a thread, or discuss them only in the context of this discussion, but don't hijack every post like this please.

Can you even tell what my original post said, or what I was responding to?

Yeah, you showed that a claim was irrational. Now I am asking if your claim that you are glad is rational?

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, you showed that a claim was irrational. Now I am asking if your claim that you are glad is rational?

That has no relevance to my post. You do this every time, if you ant to discuss epistolary or logic start a thread, or discuss them only in the context of this discussion, but don't hijack every post like this please.

Can you even tell what my original post said, or what I was responding to?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That has no relevance to my post. You do this every time, if you ant to discuss epistolary or logic start a thread, or discuss them only in the context of this discussion, but don't hijack every post like this please.

Can you even tell what my original post said, or what I was responding to?

The problem of an determined universe, an all knowing deity, if we can have free will and if a deity has created everything, it is then responsible for the bad in the world.

That was then connected to rational and logic and I then asked you about being glad. That was also in your post.
So can you decide with logic, if you ought to glad? Or with objective evidence? Or is that irrational and a belief without evidence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That has no relevance to my post. You do this every time, if you ant to discuss epistolary or logic start a thread, or discuss them only in the context of this discussion, but don't hijack every post like this please.

Can you even tell what my original post said, or what I was responding to?

Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

Now that is in another thread, but it still applies.

 

[Sheldon]

The problem of an determined universe, an all knowing deity, if we can have free will and if a deity has created everything, it is then responsible for the bad in the world.

That was then connected to rational and logic and I then asked you about being glad. That was also in your post.
So can you decide with logic, if you ought to glad? Or with objective evidence? Or is that irrational and a belief without evidence?

Not quite, someone claimed an omniscient omnipotent deity created everything, and knew what we would do before do it, and that if it desired to could stop us. I then posited that a deity that knew this and did nothing would be complicit in all human wrongdoing. So if you or I knew a crime was going to be committed, and could stop it, yet did nothing, we would be at least morally culpable, and possibly have committed a crime. Why would we expect a deity with limitless power, knowledge and choice, to fall short of the morality of evolved apes?

Now do you want to discuss the hypothetical point of whether such an extant deity would be morally culpable in the way I described?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not quite, someone claimed an omniscient omnipotent deity created everything, and knew what we would do before do it, and that if it desired to could stop us. I then posited that a deity that knew this and did nothing would be complicit in all human wrongdoing. So if you or I knew a crime was going to be committed, and could stop it, yet did nothing, we would be at least morally culpable, and possibly have committed a crime. Why would we expect a deity with limitless power, knowledge and choice, to fall short of the morality of evolved apes?

Now do you want to discuss the hypothetical point of whether such an extant deity would be morally culpable in the way I described?

Well, if said deity is the source of morality, it could decide that it is not morally culpable. But I am not going to play your game of that some religious beliefs are irrational. That is old news. The fun starts if we imagine that there was no religion. How would the world then be?
Since I live in a culture, where religion is not that big of a problem; to me subjectively it is more relevant, how we behave when we don't claim religion. I accept that you are in another culture, where religion is a big part of it.
But your culture is not the world and neither is mine.
So when you partake on an international forum with many cultures, that is what happens. You get challenged about your world view in general and you can't hide behind that you are an atheist. You make positive claims about how the world works, just like everybody else.

 

[Sheldon]

Well, if said deity is the source of morality, it could decide that it is not morally culpable.

So it would be culpable but you think such a deity need not conform to human concepts of morality? Such a deity seems no less sadistic and immoral for that explanation though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So it would be culpable but you think such a deity need not conform to human concepts of morality? Such a deity seems no less sadistic and immoral for that explanation though.

I am a skeptic. I know nothing of objective reality in itself. So we are right now playing with words. I hold no positive or negative beliefs about such deities.

 

[Sheldon]

I hold no positive or negative beliefs about such deities.

Well this is a hypothetical as I said, since I don't believe the claims that were made, but if a human knew of a heinous crime and could stop it, and yet did nothing, one assumes you'd have an opinion about such a person? I just wonder why we would hold a hypothetical deity with limitless power knowledge and therefore choice to a lesser standard of morality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well this is a hypothetical as I said, since I don't believe the claims that were made, but if a human knew of a heinous crime and could stop it, and yet did nothing, one assumes you'd have an opinion about such a person? I just wonder why we would hold a hypothetical deity with limitless power knowledge and therefore choice to a lesser standard of morality?

Well, we are not the same. You specialize in natural science and Bronze Age religion from the Levant. I do ethics in a secular society.

 

[muhammad_isa]

@Sheldon
Have you nothing to say about my post #3387 ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is axiomatic that an omnipotent deity only does what He wants to do so we can conclude that the deity doesn't want do that.

If the deity wanted to make everyone into a believer everyone would be a believer, since an omnipotent deity can make everyone into a believer. This is logic 101 stuff. It is also what Baha'u'llah wrote.

If God proved to everyone that He exists then it would not be possible to distinguish between people and how much they really care about believing in Him. In short, God wants everyone to prove their worthiness.

It's remarkable to me that this deity always seem the choose to do what would be the case in a godless universe.

This is also the case with the garage in which Sagan's invisible dragon lives. It is indistinguishable from a garage with no dragon in it. It's axiomatic that the dragon just doesn't want to be found. How do we know? Have we found it? No. If it wanted to be found, it would have made itself findable, so since we can't find it, the only possible conclusion is that it doesn't want to be found. It wants us to prove our worthiness by believing in it anyway, a common measure of worthiness, the willingness to believe for no reason.

Either it's known with certainty beforehand what I'll do or it isn't.

Not if you don't want it to be and you are willing to believe otherwise by faith. Then you can have both, and nobody can tell you otherwise. You just keep repeating that the world is predictable, and that free choice occurs as well, and nobody can get you to say otherwise.

Why would one do this? My guess is that it's the same reason as with the Christians, who need both an omniscient God and for damnation to be just, which requires free will. I don't know what the Baha'i and Muslim beliefs are to know why they so tenaciously cling to this contradiction, but you'll have about as much luck taking it away from them as you would a pork chop from a coyote.

False consensus, a relatively new term for me meaning the mistaken assumption that others are basically like oneself apart from superficial differences, and that this idea, which seems so simple and clear, can be understood by anybody if just the right words are found. Let's see, I said it in post xxx, but I guess it wasn't simple enough. Let's add an an example. Hmm, still not understood. Let me try again. Surely, if I find the right world,. they will unlock this mind like a key.

But of course, that's incorrect. That mind is radically different from yours, something false consensus says isn't the case, can't be the case. After all, it formed the same way mine did. But that's a mistake. There is no way to penetrate the shield of confirmation bias when a person is willing to believe by faith, disregard reason, and has a stake in denying the logical. The theist wants free will to be both free and predictable, so to him, it is - end of thinking. You can't penetrate that.

I think you probably know that already, but don't fully believe it. Surely this person wants to see reason if they don't already. But no, they don't.