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

[Hidingfromyou]

I have some comic books and some movies that clearly show him.

There also might have been an actual religion or something ages ago, I dunno.

Well, that's good enough for me.

All hail Thor, the Allfather!

(did I get that right?)

 

[muhammad_isa]

However, the information from one can not travel to the other faster than the speed of light. So God would still be prevented from knowing the future before it had actually happened from my point of view.

Your point of view is misunderstanding the whole issue.
When you say "before it actually happened", you are implicitly referring to your frame of reference.
G-d does not share your frame of reference.

 

[Sheldon]

When you say "before it actually happened", you are implicitly referring to your frame of reference.
G-d does not share your frame of reference.

Our frame of reference, since we share it, is the reality we have. The last part is a belief you can demonstrate no objective evidence for. I could as easily claim a strange wizards exists and arbitrarily create a religion around it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Our frame of reference, since we share it, is the reality we have..

Correct.

The last part is a belief you can demonstrate no objective evidence for. I could as easily claim a strange wizards exists and arbitrarily create a religion around it.

I'm not interested in arguing about what is subjective and objective. I'm merely pointing out that it is entirely plausible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, the Bible is nothing like the Writings of Baha'u'llah. The Bible was written by men whereas Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God who wrote His own scriptures.

... you assume.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm not interested in arguing about what is subjective and objective. I'm merely pointing out that it is entirely plausible.

It is entirely subjective, you have yet to demonstrate anything that evidences it is plausible, unless plausible means something different to you. As I say my mysterious wizard hypothetical doesn't seem objectively different to your transcendent deity. You don't just get to assume something is objectively plausible. Well you do of course, but others will need more convincing than a bare subjective assertion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is entirely subjective, you have yet to demonstrate anything that evidences it is plausible, unless plausible means something different to you..

What are you on about?
You cannot prove that it is impossible for an agent, who is in a different frame of reference to ourselves, to see what we deem to be the future.

I do not have to prove that G-d exists. I am only showing that it is possible. Not that it is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

... you assume.

No, I believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I believe.

Are those two things mutually exclusive?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What are you on about?
You cannot prove that it is impossible for an agent, who is in a different frame of reference to ourselves, to see what we deem to be the future.

I do not have to prove that G-d exists. I am only showing that it is possible. Not that it is true.

Is that what you're doing?

It seems to me that you're arguing that we can't be sure that God is impossible. I don't think that automatically implies that God is possible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are those two things mutually exclusive?

Yes, because by definition they are different.

 

[lukethethird]

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?
So far scientists have discovered beliefs in a God but no evidence to support such beliefs.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?
So far scientists have discovered beliefs in a God but no evidence to support such beliefs.

The prevalence of the beliefs, and the fact they are endemic in every culture since the beginning of time, must count as evidence in their support. To declare otherwise is to declare yourself the arbiter of what it real, on behalf of all mankind. I see no evidence to suggest you are worthy of such an exalted position.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
It is entirely subjective, you have yet to demonstrate anything that evidences it is plausible, unless plausible means something different to you..

What are you on about?

1. You made a claim that your belief in a deity was plausible, even though you have not demonstrated it is in fact possible, let alone plausible.
2. You have now responded with an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, implying that something that cannot be disproved is therefore possible. The purely assumptive leap to plausible was made without any preamble.

You cannot prove that it is impossible for an agent, who is in a different frame of reference to ourselves, to see what we deem to be the future.

That is probably why i have never claimed it is impossible, anymore than you have demonstrated it is possible, though you have of course made exactly that claim, indeed you've now made the assumptive leap from possible to plausible.

I do not have to prove that G-d exists. I am only showing that it is possible. Not that it is true.

You haven't shown it is possible, that is the point you seem to be missing. You can't just assume something is possible, just because you have created an unfalsifiable concept, how many times must an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy be explained?

Lets replace your deity with a Leprechaun that we "assume" for the sake of argument has the same properties you are assuming for a deity. Does this mean Leprechauns are possible? You can't disprove the claim after all.

Edited for typo...

 

[Sheldon]

... you assume.

No, I believe.

Are those two things mutually exclusive?

Yes, because by definition they are different.

Different and mutually exclusive are not the same thing. One can base a belief on an assumption.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Atheists would have to read the Scriptures in order to know what the beauty of God is, since that is the only way to know anything about God. In most all religions the claim is that God did things. I consider that anthropomorhism, since humans can never know what God did, as we can only know what God said through the Messenger of God who speaks as the Voice of God. However, since the only Messengers of God who wrote their own Scriptures were the Bab and Baha'u'llah, the older Scriptures are the Word of God through men, so we can never know how accurately they were recorded. From the Guardian:

...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)
.
No, it cannot be proven that God spoke to Baha'u'llah or any of the other Messengers.

Atheists would have to read the Scriptures? We can only know what God said through the messengers of God? But... since most of them didn't write their own Scriptures, we can't know how accurate they are? Which means...

We can't trust what the older religions said, but we can trust what the Baha'i writings said?

We can't trust what the older religions said, not only because we can't know how accurate their Scriptures are, but the Baha'i Faith takes that even further and says that traditions and misinterpretations were added into the different religions.

I did not say we cannot trust the older religions at all. I said: ..we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic.

So, you did not say we cannot trust the older religions? Does that mean we can trust the older religions? I don't think you're saying that. So, what do you mean? I think we can't trust them is pretty close to what the Baha'i Faith teaches. We cannot be sure how much or how little of the gospels are accurate? Well, I'd say then we can't trust them as being the inerrant, infallible word of God as some Christians claim. That's what is important. And if we can't trust the gospels, and I'd extend that to include the whole Bible, who can we trust for accurate, inerrant, infallible truth from God and about God? Of course, your religion, the Baha'i Faith.

So, then what do we do? We check out the claims. We look at the evidence. We ask for proof from the Baha'i's. Why do you believe that is true? And the arguments and debates begin. And both sides think the other is being illogical and irrational. But who are the ones that believe in an unknowable, invisible God? Of which, the only proof is the claim of a man that says that God sent him.

 

[Sheldon]

Is that what you're doing?

It seems to me that you're arguing that we can't be sure that God is impossible. I don't think that automatically implies that God is possible.

Nor does it not do this, but his assertion amounts to an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. He has not demonstrated a deity is possible at all, let alone that is is plausible, which he is now simply assuming. how exactly can he measure the probability of something when we don't know if it is possible or not?

 

[Sheldon]

The prevalence of the beliefs, and the fact they are endemic in every culture since the beginning of time, must count as evidence in their support.

Not at all, firstly that is a text book argumentum ad populum fallacy, secondly you're not describing one specific belief but many thousands, many of which are mutually exclusive with current monotheistic religions.

To declare otherwise is to declare yourself the arbiter of what it real, on behalf of all mankind. I see no evidence to suggest you are worthy of such an exalted position.

I think you may have misrepresented the claim there, as I read it all the poster did was assert there was no scientific evidence for any deity, is there any? Of course I'm not a scientists, but if there is scientific evidence for a deity, then I'm wondering why it's not being trumpeted by every theistic religion on the planet, and by the global scientific community, as it would be pretty big news, wouldn't you agree?

 

[muhammad_isa]

It seems to me that you're arguing that we can't be sure that God is impossible. I don't think that automatically implies that God is possible.

That's not what I'm saying, as you well know.

I'm saying that it is possible that an agent can see our future, due to relativity theory.
I'm not commenting on any other attribute of G-d.
I raised the topic of relativity, as certain posters keep repeating a modal fallacy about free-will and omniscience.

If an agent sees the future as "it has already happened" due to their different frame of reference, then what has that to do with free-will?
Nothing, naturally.

 

[Sheldon]

It seems to me that you're arguing that we can't be sure that God is impossible. I don't think that automatically implies that God is possible.

That's not what I'm saying, as you well know.

You cannot prove that it is impossible for an agent, who is in a different frame of reference to ourselves, to see what we deem to be the future.

I do not have to prove that G-d exists. I am only showing that it is possible. Not that it is true.