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

[Tiberius]

You again fail to understand.

The deity knows what you will do BEFORE you make the choice. At any point BEFORE you make the choice you could have made a different choice. If you make a different choice that choice will have been the choice the deity knew you would make.

All you can think of is one thing – the deity knew I would do X so I had to do X. What flies completely over your head is that if you had chosen to do Y the deity would have known you were going to choose Y. There is no way you can explain why you could not have chosen either X or Y, you just keep repeating the same old tired mantra.

You chose to do what the deity foresaw. That choice could have been X or Y. Whatever choice you made it would have been the choice that the deity foresaw since the deity can never be wrong.

No, the choice was not set in stone unless it was predestined by God, in which case it would be an irrevocable decree that will happen as God decreed it. Whatever is decreed by God is our fate and we have no control over it.

God’s knowledge does not set anything in stone at all. Omniscience is an essential attribute of God. God has always known the choices we will make because God is all-knowing but God’s knowledge in no way causes or prevents us from choosing freely.

My arguments are logical because I know something about God but there is nothing logical about God since God is not subject to logic.

Okay then. If God is not subject to logic, why doesn't he just convert me to a believer, right now?

 

[Trailblazer]

And yet God doesn’t even do this.

That is because parents are responsible for their children, not God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm certain I've explained this to you before.

Objective truth - something that is actually true in reality, something that is true for everyone.

As opposed to a subjective opinion.

Religion is worthless at finding objective truths.

What is an objective truth vs subjective?

A subjective claim cannot be proved right or wrong by any generally accepted criteria. An objective claim may be true or false; just because something is objective does not mean it is true.

Objective and Subjective Claims - TIP Sheet - Butte College

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm talking about something where you were 100% sure you were totally correct, and then it turned out you were wrong.

And you've never provided anything other than faith as a reason to believe in any religious claim.

I have provided evidence, the evidence that supports the claim. Sorry you don't like it.

Because you can go and see if they are right, for a start. If they say, "Hey, I think you forgot to account for such-and-such," you can go and see if you did account for it or not.

That is just two people discussing a religion and sharing what we should be looking for and I have no problem with that.

And, as I've already explained to you, if you have many people all telling you the same thing, it's not likely that they're all going to be mistaken in the same way, is it?

It is likely that many people are mistaken about a religious belief and I believe they are, but if you want to believe it because many people believe it maybe you should believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

As I've already explained to you, just because you have many people all believing something is true that is NO REASON to believe it is true. It is the fallacy of ad populum to conclude that a religious belief is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

That's why I don't use opinions, I use the testable, verifiable, and repeatable evidence we get from science.

As I have told you repeatedly, you can only use that for science, not for religion.

Again, special pleading. You have to say religion works differently because reasons because if you don't, you'll be left with a religion that just doesn't work.

No, that is not special pleading on my part because I clearly explained why science and religion work differently, and I explained why religion and science have different kinds of evidence and I explained why different methods of investigation are required.

What you are doing is special pleading by deliberately ignoring aspects that are unfavorable to your point of view. When you expect evidence and research methods for science to be the same as evidence and research methods for religion that is special pleading because there can never be verifiable evidence for God or a religion the way there is verifiable evidence for scientific facts, which are verifiable by measurement and testing. As such you want something that is completely unrealistic. It is completely illogical to have such as expectation because science and religion are completely different scopes of knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

The only thing you said there that came close to being right was that religion is not objectively true.

A religion can be objectively true, it just cannot be proven to be objective truth.

As for the rest of it, the whole idea of getting people to check your work and point out errors is called PEER REVIEW, and it's a part of SCIENCE. It's part of the process that tells us that we actually ARE dealing with objective facts! That's how we know they are right!

That is how we know scientific facts a re true, but that is NOT how we know a religious belief is true.
When are you going to stop conflating science with religion?

I know what peer review is not the appropriate method whereby we can know if religious beliefs are true. The very last thing we want to do is believe something is true because other people believe it is true, in which case it would be their belief, not our belief. We are accountable to God for our own beliefs and not what other people believe or disbelieve.

“……. I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure? If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: “Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self,” and if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

Pay close attention to the last sentence. What Baha’u’llah is saying is that the faith of no man should be determined by anyone except himself. In that passage above He is also saying that we are all responsible for our own faith in God, so we cannot blame other people for why we chose not to believe. That is why Baha’u’llah urged us to do our own research and investigation.

Yes, I know. Religion is worthless at finding out the truth about the universe. And I do go with science rather than religion.

Religion is nothing but a whole lot of effort that doesn't even give you anything you can be sure is true. It's just a waste of time.

If that is what you think then by all means stop discussing religion and save us both some time.

Yeah, IF. That first word there is very problematic for you. Come back and talk to me when you can do better than IF.

Come back and talk to me when you want to face the reality that religion and science are not the same.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay then. If God is not subject to logic, why doesn't he just convert me to a believer, right now?

Simply put, because God doesn't want to do that, and God only does what He wants to do.
God wants you to become a believer by choice, by exercising your own free will and choosing to believe, or not believe at all.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you also claim that relativity allows him to know the future. So provide the maths to back it up, or you've got nothing..

You said: Very well. Relativity is a scientific theory and can be described with mathematics. Please show the maths that describe how the outcome of a choice can be known before the choice is made.

Is that the best you've got .. show me the maths?
I would, if I thought that it was worthwhile.

You haven't shown me that you understand the implications from relativity as to regards time..
You are taking me for a fool, if you think that I would waste my time in that way.

Perhaps you can show us why I'm wrong mathematically?
I know, "the burden of proof is on me".
No it is NOT. I do not have to prove anything to you !
You may put me on ignore if you think that what I say is rubbish

 

[Sheldon]

I never said that the claims were true,

Yes you did:

The facts about the Baha'i Faith can be found in various books,

 

[Sheldon]

Argumentum ad populum is about what people believe.

Nope, the fallacy involves a bare appeal to numbers. A consensus based on objective evidence is not an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The number of people who believe something on its own tells us nothing about the validity of the belief.

 

[Sheldon]

What is an objective truth vs subjective?

A subjective claim cannot be proved right or wrong by any generally accepted criteria. An objective claim may be true or false; just because something is objective does not mean it is true.

Objective and Subjective Claims - TIP Sheet - Butte College

No, a subjective claim is based on personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, an objective claim is not. The more subjective a claim the less reliable, the more objective the method used to validate a claim the more reliable it is.

 

[Sheldon]

A religion can be objectively true, it just cannot be proven to be objective truth.

No, something is either supported by objective evidence or it is not, there is none for any deity. Proofs are used in logic and mathematics. People use the word proof out of that context sometimes, but it is something of a misnomer, as people often misunderstand it as you are here as some sort of absolute, rather than a tipping point where the weight of objective evidence is beyond any reasonable rational doubt, as it is species evolution for example. People who deny obviously don't understand this, or the basic methodology of science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, a subjective claim is based on personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, an objective claim is not. The more subjective a claim the less reliable, the more objective the method used to validate a claim the more reliable it is.

Well, I don't know about reliable. Since I was 18 years old and I am now 56 years, I have like the looks of the German tiger tanks. I mean that is subjective, but pretty reliable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, something is either supported by objective evidence or it is not, there is none for any deity. Proofs are used in logic and mathematics. People use the word proof out of that context sometimes, but it is something of a misnomer, as people often misunderstand it as you are here as some sort of absolute, rather than a tipping point where the weight of objective evidence is beyond any reasonable rational doubt, as it is species evolution for example. People who deny obviously don't understand this, or the basic methodology of science.

Which one is that? You have used wiki, so I do that too.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
Here is a Danish site on another version of science.
videnskab | lex.dk – Den Store Danske
So as far as I can tell your version is not absolute and neither is mine.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I said: The fact that I can't change the future, doesn't prevent me from taking responsibility for my actions.

If you can't change the future, you are not responsible for it.

That's not true. I'm responsible for what I say and do.
It is that what DETERMINES the future. The fact that I'm not aware of what I will say and do in the future has no bearing on that.

 

[CG Didymus]

If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: “Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self,” and if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”

Do people have a reason to doubt the religious claims of other people? I assume you'd agree. Then, "disbelieved" in his beauty? What beauty has God shown to Atheists? In most all religions the claim is that God did things and said things... Can it be proven? I'd say no. Do you agree with that?

Then this guy says he just went along with the crowd? How many "follow" the crowd and just believe in a religion because of other people? And, it sounds to me, that most Atheists have done a lot of "investigating" of what is true. And a real God isn't part of what they have found. Just a lot of people in a lot of religions saying there is a God. And they all say and believe different things.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes you did:

Trailblazer said: ↑
I never said that the claims were true,

Sheldon said: Yes you did:

Trailblazer said: ↑
The facts about the Baha'i Faith can be found in various books,

How does what I said equate to me saying that the claims of Baha'u'llah are true?

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope, the fallacy involves a bare appeal to numbers. A consensus based on objective evidence is not an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The number of people who believe something on its own tells us nothing about the validity of the belief.

A consensus (many people believe it based upon the objective evidence so it must be true) is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
The objective evidence tells us something about the validity of the belief, but the number of people who believe something based upon the objective evidence tells us nothing about the validity of the belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, a subjective claim is based on personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, an objective claim is not. The more subjective a claim the less reliable, the more objective the method used to validate a claim the more reliable it is.

That does not change the fact that an objective claim may be true or false; just because something is objective does not mean it is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, something is either supported by objective evidence or it is not, there is none for any deity.

I believe that the objective evidence for the deity are His Messengers.
However, the deity could exist even if it provided no evidence at all.

Given the empirical evidence, there are three mutually exclusive logical possibilities.

1. The deity exists and communicates to us via Messengers (theism), or
2. The deity exists and does not communicate with humans at all (deism), or
3. The deity does not exist (atheism)

 

[Sheldon]

I believe that the objective evidence for the deity are His Messengers.

No, that's bare claim again.