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

[muhammad_isa]

Einstein apologised to me in a vision. Said he was wrong and sorry..
.

Only G-d is right ALL the time

Newton's third law states:
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction"

..so when I make a post, somebody has to contradict me

 

[rational experiences]

Men of science claim give me evidence of ...this.

In bible TH. Is is Jesus king of kings.

I want it he says.

I see God O Phi on the ground

Etched in stone. Cooled to squashing crops. Who are ground earth rooted

First advice lying.

Etched burnt out ground just stone gone. Removed ground mass.

Second advice I look at circles. As a human thinker I then have to human think about what I look at.

Where did design theory man of science behind first rationally?

In his head.

I think O circle. I have to infer a measure calculated. I give it a number.

I then apply maths calculus to thinking.

Did your thinking own a circle first?

No.

100 per cent human theist wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not my standard for worthiness. In fact, the willingness to believe by faith is pretty much the opposite of worthiness to me. It requires no thought and no discernment, just the mere will to believe. I don't consider that worthy or a virtue. It's a logical error.

I did not say anything about believing on faith. I was talking about believing based upon the evidence.

Trailblazer said: The deity wants us to prove our worthiness by searching for the only evidence that shows that it exists, the Messengers of the deity. A common measure of worthiness is the willingness to believe based upon the evidence the deity provides.

There is nothing illogical about believing based upon the evidence the deity provides. It is logical since there would be no other way to procure evidence unless the deity provided it. Sure, we are asked to have faith that the Messenger really spoke for God but since the Messenger provided us with good evidence to support His claims, what we have is evidence-based faith.

I've already explained that I don't consider any words on earth to be from a nonhuman source, since none are not within the grasp of human minds. In fact, it's just another case of the deity doing what would be the case if it didn't exist - writing as humans would.

If the words of the Messenger were not within the grasp of human minds, how could humans ever understand them? It is a case of doing what a deity would do if it existed, sending a Messenger who can communicate with humans in a way that the humans could understand what the deity sought to convey. All this is logical.

Trailblazer said: How do you know what a deity would choose to do if it existed? That is the hundred-million-dollar question.

For one thing, I've got you to tell me. You just told me what the deity wants. I guess this is a game where you give yourself permission to speak for a deity, then attempt to disqualify others from making comments such as the one I made,

I am not speaking for the deity. Baha’u’llah spoke for the deity and that is how I know what the deity wants.

You can make any comments you want to make but you are shooting in the dark since you have no way to know what the deity wants.

which was this god always seems to choose to do what would happen if there were no god: nothing. Why do you suppose that is? Why does this God choose to imitate its own nonexistence? This is a good question that deserves an answer (not really - it's a rhetorical question making a statement).

It is quite obvious why you say what you do. It is a projection of your own ego, what YOU believe would happen if there was no God. To further clarify, YOU have decided what we would expect to see if God actually existed, and since we do not see what YOU would expect to see, you have determined that no God exists. The salient problem is that YOU cannot ever know what we could expect to see so it is just a projection of your ego.

Until you understand that is what you are doing there is no point going any further in this discussion.

Trailblazer said: If a deity 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.

That's if a deity exists. If the deity doesn't exist, it will also be unfindable. The hundred-million-dollar question is whether such a God exists or not.

That is absolutely correct since nobody could ever find a deity that does not exist, but conversely, a deity that exists might not want to be found, in which case we could never find it.

Yes, the hundred-million-dollar question is whether such a God exists or not.

I think one reason we don't make progress in these discussions is that you don't acknowledge that this God might not exist. All of your comments about gods are based on the existence of one, an unshared premise with me.

I have acknowledged that it is logically possible that a deity does not exist but I am not going to acknowledge that ‘I believe’ God might not exist because I am certain that God exists, so if atheists do not want to post to me knowing that is what I believe that is their choice.

Nothing that follows from a false premise can be sound, therefore all pronouncements that depend on a God existing are unsound.

I have no premise that God exists since the conclusion God exists can never be proven. I believe that God exists but that can never be proven in a logical argument so I am not making one.

So, instead of using language that acknowledges this difference, such as why this elusive behavior is more consistent with a God existing than not, you just go on as if this God exists. As I said, those comments are rejected for being insufficiently supported to be believed. If you understood that, you might try an approach that takes that into account.

I have explained why this elusive behavior is more consistent with a God existing than not, stating that God wants to remain hidden from the eyes of men, but my comments are rejected for being insufficiently supported to be believed. After nine years posting to atheists, I certainly do know that atheists do not think my beliefs have sufficient support.

After all, my language doesn't exclude your belief. I don't assume that gods don't exist in my responses, and continually imply that this God's existence is possible. My words are occasionally of the form, "If this God existed," which you object to, since you don't like anybody (except yourself, apparently) speculating on what a god might be like if one existed.

I do not think anyone should speculate on what God would be like if God existed because they can never know so it is an exercise in futility. It is also a projection of ego, since it is what certain atheists would ‘expect to see’ if God existed. I cannot make myself any clearer than that.

I do not speculate on what God is like, I believe what is revealed in Scriptures, which I believe is the only way humans can ever know anything about God.

But those words acknowledge that I am speaking with a theist. You don't do that. You don't acknowledge that I simply don't believe this God exists as you keep telling me what it must be like, pointless words before you have established that existence.

I certainly do realize I am talking with an atheist and that you are not going to believe what I say about what God wants or does, but I can only speak from my own perspective as you speak from yours.

Nobody can ever establish the existence of God; all theists can do is speak according to what we believe about God according to Scriptures.

 

[rational experiences]

Father explained.

Eternal lost a portion of its body as gods O into mass creation. God O was owned first created by eternal mass released into inheritance burning energy.

Humans wisdom. I am not God.

In earths planet O gods spatial plane filled in first by gas. We are not a gas. Then it filled up by water mass oxygenated. Eternal then sent out life spirit.

First spirit grounded. Nature.

By cause effect water radiation changes.

We followed owning body presence being of the eternal.spirit being.

Full wisdom.

Man did not want to be bound to human life. Wanted to go back into eternal life form.

Chose the subject science.

Built machines time travel.

The heavens not space owned eternal interactive reasons. Space was total separation from origin.

Irradiated sacrificed us by machine inventive causes. Went the opposite way into conversion.

The state of God to record was cosmic universal already natural the state..

We were irradiated recorded.

Once we lived in ground water mass 200 years life span.

Origin human after ice age life 120 years.

Now 100 years of life water given to recording us. 20 years water gone. 100 years water lived.

Father the scientist is the voice. Man adult.

We live. We die. The eternal still exists. But it now communicates directly to the recording. Half natural human life lost. What we claim is God our father in earth heavens.

Unseen as we live in oxygen water body.

Never will be found.

His voice image stuck in heavens for man's evil science choice.

One day earths alight heavens in voiding vacuum will own no light.

Will be finished then. His promise.

Is the exact scientists advice.

Earth in natural place space void once owned no alight gas atmosphere. one day natural evolution will cause it to stop burning. By space womb law.

Earth gas of a planet not any sun.

Earth gases are not any sun mass. Will not be burning for millions of years.

You already were taught this teaching. You ignored father. His promise one day the evil act life suffering will end naturally.

 

[Lain]

..so when I make a post, somebody has to contradict me

False.

 

[Trailblazer]

At one point in my life, if you'd asked me, I would have said that I HAD found God. But when I realised that the method I had used was unreliable and I abandoned it. I discovered that what I had thought was God was nothing more than indoctrination.

But logically speaking, that does not mean that the methods whereby other people have found God are nothing more than indoctrination.

Some of us were not raised to believe in God at all. My mother and father were raised as Christians but they dropped out of the Church before we were born. My father died when I was 12 years old before he ever heard of the Baha'i Faith. My mother told me later that my father became an atheist. Much later in her life my mother became a Baha'i, after all of us three children had become Baha'is.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it comes from within me, then it's subjective and therefore can't possibly be objective truth.

That is illogical because it could be the objective truth that came from within you.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's why we get others to check our working, so that if we did happen to let some subjective opinion influence us (even in a subconscious way), other people will be able to spot it and then we can take steps to remove its influence. And the more people check it, the better the chance that such influences will be found and removed.

And that's exactly how science works.

Do you mean they could spot it with their own subjective opinion? How would that get us any closer to objective truth?
Do you mean that the more subjective opinions we have the closer we would get to the objective truth? How would that work?

Sorry, but religion does not work the way science works because religion can never be proven as a fact and thus all people can ever have are subjective opinions about the objective facts surrounding the different religions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: You have no choice but to do what the deity has foreseen but you do not know what the deity has foreseen.
That's the problem.

Tiberius said: Well, we're getting somewhere, finally. At least you are agreeing that I do not have a choice.

You did have a choice and you chose to do what the deity foresaw. That choice could have been choice A, B, C, or D. Whatever choice you made it would have been the choice that the deity foresaw since the deity can never be wrong.

If you had chosen A, that would have been what the deity always knew you would choose.
If you had chosen B, that would have been what the deity always knew you would choose.
If you had chosen C, that would have been what the deity always knew you would choose.
If you had chosen D, that would have been what the deity always knew you would choose.

Now, if you'll remember that hypothetical question I asked earlier, I did specifically say that God told you what he had foreseen that I will do.

Your current argument seems to be that God must keep his mouth shut because... reasons.

I do not deal in hypotheticals. God does not tell anyone what He has foreseen, so you cannot ever know what God has foreseen. That means you cannot ever know what you will choose until you choose it. God knew what you would choose before you chose it because God has foreknowledge.

Case closed.

Hold on, you just agreed with me that I had no choice but to do what God had foreseen, now you say I DO have a choice? Once again, you flip flop.

See my answer above.

 

[Trailblazer]

Only G-d is right ALL the time

That's right, and atheists just hate that since they don't like to admit God is right and they are wrong.

 

[KWED]

The reason we ‘feel’ we have free will to make any choice is because God created humans will free will so we can make choices.

You just said...
"You have no choice but to do what the deity has foreseen"

Why can’t it be BOTH? Please explain logically why it cannot be both.

You have a choice to make at Time T, between A, B and C.
Before Time T, god already knows what your choice will be (A), and he cannot be wrong.
So at T-1, you feel like you can choose A, B or C. You do not feel coerced into choosing A. You see each as an equal possibility.
However, you cannot choose B or C because then god would have been wrong, which is not possible.
Therefore you can only choose A. It is inevitable and unavoidable.

Now, you explain how you have the ability to chose B or C in this scenario. (Note: simply asserting "But We Have Free Will!!" is not sufficient)

In other words, how does the fact that God knows what we will choose determine what we will choose?

Because, as you pointed out "You have no choice but to do what the deity has foreseen".

This is where the cognitive dissonance comes into play. You accept the basic that god's infallible foreknowledge removes the possibility of choosing other options. The logical consequence of this is the negation of free will. However, your belief fundamentally requires us to have free will, so you simply continue to assert it, despite already having implicitly accepted that it is not possible.

You are conflating divine predestination and infallible omniscience and they are not the same. God’s infallible omniscience means that God knows everything that has ever happened, what is happening now, and everything that will ever happen.

No I am not. I have repeatedly explained how they are different (although the ultimate consequence is essentially the same).

Divine predestination would mean that humans have no free will. Free will could not exist if everything was predestined (predetermined) by God but there is no reason to believe that is the case. If that was true then humans would be no more than God’s puppets on a string, God’s programmed robots.

I am not well-read in Baha'i ideology, but "Unto each one hath been prescribed a pre-ordained measure, as decreed in God's mighty and guarded Tablets.", coupled with infallible omniscience would seem to indicate predetermination.

Moreover, if free will did not exist humans could never be held accountable for their actions in courts of law.

This is a theological, not legal discussion.
However, you are correct to a degree. External influence, background, coercion, etc can be used as mitigation for offences.

Some things are predestined by God but other things are left to the free will of man and thus they are not predetermined.

OK, so you accept that god predetermines at least part of our lives.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.”

Some Answered Questions, p. 248

Man is forced to endure them because God set it up that way since we live in a material world where some of the bad things happen are beyond our control.

This issue is about free will, meaning the choices we make. It is not about whether we contract Covid or get hit by a bus.
But are you saying that those things are determined by god?

I never claimed that at Time T you could choose B, C, or D when God already knows you will choose A. You will choose A if God already knows you will choose A, but you will not choose A because God knew you would choose A. You will choose A because you wanted to choose A. If you had wanted to choose B, C, or D, you would have chosen B, C, or D and God would have known which one of those you were going to choose.

If God had predestined that you would choose A you would have no choice but to choose A, but the fact that God knew you would choose A does not cause you to choose A.

All you are doing here is moving the problem back a step. It is irrelevant what we choose, whatever it is, that choice is still fixed by god's foreknowledge of it.

“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

No one is claiming that god's foreknowledge causes our choices. It merely fixes them, makes them inevitable.
God is not making you choose A against your will when you want to choose B.

Question.—If God has knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone, and it has been written on the Tablet of Fate, is it possible to resist it?

Obviously not. That action must happen.

 

[KWED]

Doesn't apply to me. .

 

[KWED]

what really convinced me that the Baha'i Faith was true was Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era because there were a lot of facts in there.
Emotions can be very misleading so I rely upon facts.

What "facts" are these, and how do they prove that the Bahai god exists?
Some examples please (actual references, not just claims).

 

[muhammad_isa]

You have a choice to make at Time T, between A, B and C.
Before Time T, god already knows what your choice will be (A), and he cannot be wrong.
So at T-1, you feel like you can choose A, B or C. You do not feel coerced into choosing A. You see each as an equal possibility.
However, you cannot choose B or C because then god would have been wrong, which is not possible.

Why is it not possible?
It is not possible because it is an initial assumption.

Therefore you can only choose A. It is inevitable and unavoidable.

Why is it impossible to choose other than A?
..because of the initial assumption that God can't be wrong.
..and not because you are not free to choose.

Because, as you pointed out "You have no choice but to do what the deity has foreseen".

That's purely a play on words. It is not that you weren't free to choose, it is necessarily true that you will choose A because of your initial assumptions.
i.e. you will choose A because G-d can't be wrong

No one is claiming that god's foreknowledge causes our choices. It merely fixes them, makes them inevitable.

Clearly, it is inevitable that you must choose something

 

[KWED]

No, you do not get any hand waving, you get the link to the post below.

Some time ago when asked for evidence I posted the claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah on this thread:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

No, there is much more verifiable evidence for the Baha'i Faith than there is for for any other religion and because we have more evidence that makes it a lot easier to determine if it is true or not, based upon the historical facts surrounding the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

Oh dear. We went though this at the time.
1. Claims like "His person" and "His revelation" are evidence that it is true is just circular logic of the lowest order. It is mere assertion, not evidence.
2. Those magical prophesies are nothing of the sort. I went through the one that was supposed to detail Napoleon III and explained why it it bore little resemblance to the actual events.

Let's look at another. You claim the passage addressed to Wilhelm I in 1873 "O King of Berlin!... 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" prophesies WW1 and WW2.
For starters, Wilhelm died 30 years before WW1 started.
Second, predicting geo-military upheaval and reversals of fortune in 19th century Europe was hardly magic. Any political commentator could have predicted that empires rise and fall. Bahaullah himself uses a recent example of just such a thing.

Another "magical prophesy" was telling the popular monarch of the world's largest and most powerful (and still growing) empire that she was going to be successful.

So, we can see that far from providing any "evidence" for the existence of a particular version of god, you have merely illustrated dogmatic belief and confirmation bias.

 

[Sheldon]

You get zero points for comprehension.
Where have I said that?

When you tacked it onto this discussion, as that is what was being discussed, otherwise how is it remotely relevant to your claim an omniscient deity know what we will do before do it?

Stop waffling on, and ignoring the truth.

Oh dear, calm down.

I'm making a scientific claim with evidence to back it up.

That doesn't appear to have any relevance to your claim we were discussing that a deity with omniscience knows what we will do before we do it.

You claim that the "growing block theory" can be compatible with relativity?
Please provide evidence for this.

I never claimed this, maybe you should read more carefully.

I'll remind you..
“The majority of physicists believe in the block-universe view, because it is predicted by general relativity,”

It seems after your histrionics about comprehension, that ironically you don't understand what inverted commas mean.

 

[Sheldon]

Why is it not possible?
It is not possible because it is an initial assumption.



Why is it impossible to choose other than A?
..because of the initial assumption that God can't be wrong.
..and not because you are not free to choose.


That's purely a play on words. It is not that you weren't free to choose, it is necessarily true that you will choose A because of your initial assumptions.
i.e. you will choose A because G-d can't be wrong



Clearly, it is inevitable that you must choose something

I have two choices.

A or B

You are claiming that if I choose A, that a deity has always known I will choose A. Ipso facto I could not have chosen other A.

 

[Sheldon]

So, we can see that far from providing any "evidence" for the existence of a particular version of god, you have merely illustrated dogmatic belief and confirmation bias.

Are you sure, he seems to be implying Einstein's work evidences his claim, though now he doesn't seem sure it has any relevance even after he has introduced it. Einstein must have misunderstood his work, as he didn't believe in a personal deity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

When you tacked it onto this discussion, as that is what was being discussed, otherwise how is it remotely relevant to your claim an omniscient deity know what we will do before do it?

Umm .. it is precisely the same thing.
The block universe scenario that we can predict from relativity,
means that the future is fixed or "already happened" for want of a better phrase.
That is no different than saying G-d knows what you will do.
The result is the same. A fixed future.

The misunderstanding arises form the word "fixed", as one intuitively thinks that that removes our free-will. It doesn't.
It simply means that our choices fix it, in exactly the same way as the past.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a distinct feeling of deja-vu

That doesn't appear to have any relevance to your claim we were discussing that a deity with omniscience knows what we will do before we do it.

It makes no difference whether one is a theist or a deist, the result is the same. Einstein's relativity theory predicts a fixed future. If you can't understand why, you should have watched the cartoon I posted earlier..

>>>Physics suggests that the future has already happened - BBC Reel<<<

 

[Sheldon]

You do however, and have implied Einstein's work supports your claim that an omniscient deity exists, and knows everything we will do, and of course that we still have free will. If Einstein's work supports this conclusions why didn't he believe it?

Where have I said that?

Umm .. it is precisely the same thing.

So Einstein missed this then? In his own work?