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

[muhammad_isa]

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 disprove the claim after all.

Of course it is possible.
It is YOU who are insisting that the agent must be "the Abrahamic God" .. not me.
I'm merely making an argument about "an agent".
That agent could be a Leprechaun, if you wish.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Or one can base a belief on evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

Of course it is possible.

Oh sorry that's very different, now you've added the words "of course".

It is YOU who are insisting that the agent must be "the Abrahamic God" .. not me.

Ok 10/10 for the most hilarious straw man ever, I can only suggest you look up atheist to understand why that had me spitting shiraz everywhere.

I'm merely making an argument about "an agent".
That agent could be a Leprechaun, if you wish.

Oh I don't believe in leprechauns or wishes, but at least you admit that if your unevidenced assumption that you've tacked onto the theory of relativity has validity it would show leprechauns are possible.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.



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?

I think you just made a textbook missedium ad pointium fallacy there tbh.

All religious beliefs are, imo, merely different cultural manifestations of the same principle; that as well as physical and mental existence, we also have access to that which is universally described as spiritual.

No, science has not as yet either proved or disproved the existence of God. Both religion and science have been around for centuries, neither are novel concepts, not do they negate the other; though I suppose the uncertainty principle may have some application regarding clarity of focus on each at the same time (that’s a philosophical digression I would need time to develop).

 

[CG Didymus]

My point was that God is not responsible for intervening on earth and doing what humans are responsible for.
NOTHING in the world could be more idiotic than to expect that, NOTHING.

Well, why the hell not?

Yes, Trailblazer why not? In other religions God does intervene. People pray to God for him to intervene and they say he did. Were they wrong? When Baha'is pray for something personal, like a healing, they don't expect God to intervene? When all those rifles were pointed at the Bab, what made them miss? A Baha'is traveling teacher told the story of going to an Indian Reservation and the dirt road was washed out. She told the driver to back up and floor it. The car made the jump. Did God intervene in that? Or did she just get lucky? So, what is the Baha'is teachings on this?

 

[lukethethird]

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.

So what you are saying is that if enough people believe, it must be true. You do realize that that is a fallacious reasoning, do you not?

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Below is the Baha'i position on the Bible according to the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, Shoghi Effendi:

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet.

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Regarding the stories in the Bible, the following are more letters from Shoghi Efffendi about the Bible:

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)

Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean.
(31 January 1955 to an individual believer)

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[RestlessSoul]

So what you are saying is that if enough people believe, it must be true. You do realize that that is a fallacious reasoning, do you not?

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m merely pointing out that the statistical likelihood of you having stumbled on a line of reasoning nobody else has considered, is pretty slender.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, Trailblazer why not? In other religions God does intervene. People pray to God for him to intervene and they say he did. Were they wrong? When Baha'is pray for something personal, like a healing, they don't expect God to intervene? When all those rifles were pointed at the Bab, what made them miss? A Baha'is traveling teacher told the story of going to an Indian Reservation and the dirt road was washed out. She told the driver to back up and floor it. The car made the jump. Did God intervene in that? Or did she just get lucky? So, what is the Baha'is teachings on this?

I did not say that God never intervenes. The context of my reply is that God is not going to do things that humans are responsible for, like stop a child from running out into the street. That kind of expectation is what I consider idiotic.

Trailblazer said: My point was that God is not responsible for intervening on earth and doing what humans are responsible for.
NOTHING in the world could be more idiotic than to expect that, NOTHING.

God does intervene when He answers our prayers, but only if He chooses to intervene, and we can never really know if or when God intervened. Sometimes I believe that God is intervening and helping me, but I could never prove that God assisted me so it is a faith-based belief.

When all those rifles were pointed at the Bab and they missed that was a miracle and I would say it came from God, because it was destined to be so.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Oh I don't believe in leprechauns or wishes, but at least you admit that if your unevidenced assumption that you've tacked onto the theory of relativity has validity it would show leprechauns are possible.

Your argument is a pure diversion.
Stick to the point .. "an agent".

It is not a proof of existence of any particular deity.
It is a proof that omniscience and free-will are compatible.
Nothing more, and nothing less.

 

[Sheldon]

I think you just made a textbook missedium ad pointium fallacy there tbh.

No offence but you made a pretty obvious bare appeal to numbers. Here it is again for ref:

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.

That is a bare appeal to numbers if ever there was one sorry.

All religious beliefs are, imo, merely different cultural manifestations of the same principle; that as well as physical and mental properties,

Well you are of course entitled to a bare opinion, but I have always found that idea risible sorry. Occam's razor suggests a far simpler idea for the prevalence of so many deities and religions, and how they seem to follow the very human prejudices and ignorance of the cultures from which they emerged.

we also have access to that which is universally described as spiritual.

I've yet to see any objective evidence to support this claim.

No, science has not as yet either proved or disproved the existence of God.

Well god in a generic sense seems unfalsifiable, and as such the idea would be unscientific, no? Isn't falsifiability a core requirement of the scientific method.

Both religion and science have been around for centuries, neither are novel concepts, not do they negate the other;

Not in an absolute sense I'm sure, however not all theistic claims are unfalsifiable, and though I understand many theists now claim the bible is allegory, there are biblical claims that have been falsified by science.

I accept that in your opinion "all religious beliefs are, merely different cultural manifestations of the same principle" but no offence, I have always found the claim highly unlikely.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m merely pointing out that the statistical likelihood of you having stumbled on a line of reasoning nobody else has considered, is pretty slender.

You are discounting the various forms then - like sun worship, animism and the rest? Since these tell more about the evolution of such beliefs than all believing the 'one' and supporting your argument - even if it is fallacious anyway - given that humans have had so many false beliefs over their existence, so why pick out one as being special, and true?

 

[lukethethird]

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m merely pointing out that the statistical likelihood of you having stumbled on a line of reasoning nobody else has considered, is pretty slender.

You stated, "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." That is fallacious reasoning, it is known as the 'bandwagon fallacy.' Many have considered this long before I came along. The fact that the beliefs are prevalent does not make them true. All that tells us is that humans have a gullible streak in them and that critical thinking skills are lacking when it comes to religion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You are discounting the various forms then - like sun worship, animism and the rest? Since these tell more about the evolution of such beliefs than all believing the 'one' and supporting your argument - even if it is fallacious anyway - given that humans have had so many false beliefs over their existence, so why pick out one as being special, and true?

I don’t pick out one religion as being special and true, never have. I’m still nominally a Roman Catholic, but for me the emphasis is very much on catholic as defined by the OED; embracing a wide variety of things.

As for sun worship and animism, the sun is the giver of life in our solar system, so it’s perfectly natural that our forefathers might have afforded it great significance in their belief systems; it may even, in some cultures, have been more than just a metaphor for divinity, but I would refer you to Percy Shelley’s ‘Song of Apollo’ for a post enlightenment interpretation of man’s wonder at the miracles of the natural world, and the consciousness by which he perceives it..

 

[samtonga43]

Why am I not surprised? Not very many people believe that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God.
Not very many people believed that Jesus was who He claimed to be either, not for many years after He walked the earth, but that does not mean that Jesus was not who He claimed to be. There is no more proof that Jesus was who He claimed to be than that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be. The only difference between Jesus and Baha'u'llah is that the Gospel message has had over 2000 years to spread whereas the message of Baha'u'llah has had only about 150 years to spread.How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

I said nothing about the number of people who believe something. It was you who mentioned this.

You are attacking a strawman.

strawman

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don’t pick out one religion as being special and true, never have. I’m still nominally a Roman Catholic, but for me the emphasis is very much on catholic as defined by the OED; embracing a wide variety of things.

I meant one belief or system of beliefs - as in religious beliefs - so not about any particular religion. Why are these different from any of the other beliefs that we have had and held erroneously? A search will find plenty that have been believed, even in science, but were wrong. Why are these particular beliefs, even if they tend to coalesce around the one God, any more likely to be true just because many do believe them? Their durability after all might just reflect on their usefulness.

As for sun worship and animism, the sun is the giver of life in our solar system, so it’s perfectly natural that our forefathers might have afforded it great significance in their belief systems; it may even, in some cultures, have been more than just a metaphor for divinity, but I would refer you to Percy Shelley’s ‘Song of Apollo’ for a post enlightenment interpretation of man’s wonder at the miracles of the natural world, and the consciousness by which he perceives it..

Well the sun-worshippers, even the modern variety, do at least have factual evidence on their side, since an absence of this rather useful heat source would see our prompt deaths - so I can forgive them of that. But you can see how beliefs were probably much more primitive in earlier times and went through a process much like everything else to do with humans - some becoming sophisticated and some not so much.

 

[Sheldon]

Your argument is a pure diversion.
Stick to the point .. "an agent".

Do you think backtracking from omniscient deity to omniscient agent makes your assumption any more valid?

It is a proof that omniscience and free-will are compatible.

No it isn't, and I think you mean evidence not proof.

It is not a proof of existence of any particular deity.

It is not a proof of anything, nor is it proof. It isn't even objective evidence. It's a "god of the gaps" polemic at best.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Or one can base a belief on evidence.

So what, I never claimed otherwise, I was just pointing out that your claim that assumption and belief are mutually exclusive was incorrect, as they're not, obviously.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No it isn't, and I think you mean evidence not proof..

Why isn't it a proof?

1. An agent can exist that sees our future [due to relativity]
2. Free-will is not affected

What's wrong with the above?

 

[Sheldon]

Why isn't it a proof?

I don't understand the question? Do you mean proof or a proof? Proof is a misnomer or a legal term, and a proof is surely for mathematics.

1. An agent can exist that sees our future [due to relativity]

That's pure unevidenced assumption.

2. Free-will is not affected

Well I'm in no rush to step back onto your errant merry-go-round, but it is moot in this instance anyway. As you have failed to demonstrate that any deity, sorry agent is possible, omniscient or extant.

What's wrong with the above?

That depends what you mean by wrong, but for a start you have zero objective evidence it is possible, and pointing at the theory of relativity is just a god of the gaps polemic.