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

[Trailblazer]

And why shouldn't I say that children are responsible for themselves and other children?

You can say whatever you want if you want to look foolish. Why would babysitters and child care be necessary if children can be responsible for themselves and other children?

And why is God not responsible for the life he creates?

God did not create that life, the parents created life when they had sex and had children.

God gave humans a brain and free will so they could be responsible for themselves.

 

[Trailblazer]

The fictions you believe in are equal to the fictions of Thor.

In your mind, yes. Problem is, there is evidence for the one true God but there is no evidence for Thor. Thor is a mythical creature.

In Germanic mythology, Thor (/θɔːr/; from Old Norse: Þórr [ˈθoːrː]) is a hammer-wielding god associated with lightning, thunder, storms, sacred groves and trees, strength, the protection of mankind, hallowing, and fertility.

Thor - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Thor

 

[Trailblazer]

It has exactly as much validity as every other religion, which is to say, zero. I know it's make-believe because of that.

I was not referring to my religion, I was referring to God. Every true religion is evidence for God and there is evidence for every true religion of God, although there is more evidence for some religions than for others.

 

[Trailblazer]

The movies, comics and an ancient religious belief beg to differ.

Why would that matter?

 

[Trailblazer]

Your intentions are irrelevant. What you DO is what's important.

Perhaps you've heard of the old saying, "Actions speak louder than words"?

I fully agree and that is actually a Baha'i belief.

“The essence of faith is fewness of words and abundance of deeds; he whose words exceed his deeds, know verily his death is better than his life.”

“Man is like unto a tree. If he be adorned with fruit, he hath been and will ever be worthy of praise and commendation. Otherwise a fruitless tree is but fit for fire.” Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 156, 257

I always admit when I DO something wrong, but I did not DO anything wrong in what I posted, just because it was not what you wanted or expected.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except you can't actually show that this is objectively true, can you?

No, I cannot prove it, but that does not mean it is not true because proof does not make anything true.

So if there's no verifiable evidence that Mr B is a messenger from God, how can you claim it's OBJECTIVELY true that he is a messenger from God?

I am not claiming it is true, I believe it is true because I have verified it is true to my own satisfaction and that is all that matters because I am in no way responsible to God for verifying it is true for other people.

It appears that I DO need to repeat it again.

If a bunch of people do their own investigations of something that is objectively true, they will all reach the same conclusions.

You can repeat it till the cows come home but it will not make any more logical sense no mater how many times you repeat it.

All people reach the same conclusions on scientific truth because it can be proven to be true. A religion can be true but since it can never be proven true all people will never agree that it is true. This is logic 101 stuff.

There is no evidence for any spiritual reality. The only "evidence" for it comes from a method of study which has not shown itself to be a reliable method of finding accurate information.

Spiritual reality is revealed in Scriptures of various religions, that is the only method of study and it is reliable.

It was once obvious that a heavy object would fall faster than a light object, and that was wrong. Your appeals to gut feeling are not convincing.

I do not appeal to gut feelings, I appeal to scriptures, which are the ONLY way anyone can know anything about God or spiritual reality.

Your claim fails.

People do not process the evidence for the speed of light differently and get different results.

People do not process the evidence for the average weight of a bull African elephant differently and get different results.

People do not process the evidence for the average distance between the Earth and the Sun differently and get different results.

People do not process the evidence for the chemical composition of pure water differently and get different results.

And yet you must claim that the DO in order to hold your position that religion can be of any use at all. The fact people reach different conclusions about religion is evidence that religion is bunk, because there are countless examples of people all agreeing completely about what the evidence says. Your attempts to explain why it's magically different for religion fail utterly.

We are not talking about science, we are talking about religion. Why do you keep bringing up science and conflating science with religion? That is the fallacy of false equivalency so it is illogical.

The fact people reach different conclusions about religion is evidence that people are all different in how they think and process information, and since religion can never be proven to be true as science can be proven to be true people are free to disagree on which if any religions are true.

And you can't show that your religious beliefs have any such correspondence with reality.

Don't feel bad. No other religion can do it either.

I cannot show it to you, each person needs to show it to themselves. The mistake atheists make is that they ‘believe’ that believers are responsible to show them that their religion is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, if there's always a possibility for a mistake, how can we claim to know that what we have concluded is objectively true?

We should not claim we know but we can believe that we know. If that knowledge comes from God we can know for certain.

So there's no such thing as something which is true for everyone?

It is true for everyone that I am sitting in a chair at the moment. No one can disagree with that without being wrong, isn't that right?

There is such a thing as something that is true for everyone, but not everyone is going to agree on a truth unless it can be proven to be true.

Ah yes, here we go with the, "Oh, but that doesn't count!" excuses...

I need no excuses for believing in spiritual reality.

Anything that claims to describe reality should be held to the SAME standard - specifically, that what they describe actually corresponds to reality.

Religion and science are describing a DIFFERENT aspect of reality – material vs. spiritual -- so they have different methods and standards.

I'm not talking about an argument from popularity. I'm talking about how, if something is ACTUALLY TRUE, then the evidence for that truth is there for all to see and people will agree about it.

I can name countless cases where this has happened, and you are left floundering struggling to come up with excuses as to why this shouldn't also be expected of your proposed method of finding the truth.

All you have come up with is cases where scientific truths that have been proven to be true and people agree on these truths. People will never universally agree on religious truths that cannot be proven to be facts. It is obvious why. Everyone has free will to choose what to believe. Our belief choices are based upon our desires and preferences and our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, and adult experiences. All these factors contribute to how we view the SAME evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

Why? If an observer travels at a speed approaching that of light, then events over millions of years merge together.

For us, what we consider to be the present is merely an illusion.
as It only applies to our frame of reference. This is what is confusing you.

Yes, but the ability for that information to travel back in time is still impossible.

God can not see what I am going to do tomorrow and then communicate that information to the past.

 

[Tiberius]

You can say whatever you want if you want to look foolish. Why would babysitters and child care be necessary if children can be responsible for themselves and other children?

You have a great skill of missing the point.

God did not create that life, the parents created life when they had sex and had children.

And I didn't create the life of the children I saw playing in the busy street.

God gave humans a brain and free will so they could be responsible for themselves.

Then why does God step in and send messengers and tell us how he wants us to live?

Honestly, I'm not surprised by this point that your position is inconsistent.

 

[Tiberius]

Why would that matter?

They show what Thor is like. Of course, I'm not surprised that you'd find a way to reject any evidence that disagrees with your view...

 

[Tiberius]

No, I cannot prove it, but that does not mean it is not true because proof does not make anything true.

Are you seriously suggesting that something which has been proven could still be wrong?

I am not claiming it is true, I believe it is true because I have verified it is true to my own satisfaction and that is all that matters because I am in no way responsible to God for verifying it is true for other people.

Ah, are we back to hiding behind the "I'm not making claims, I'm just stating my belief!" now, are we?

You can repeat it till the cows come home but it will not make any more logical sense no mater how many times you repeat it.

All people reach the same conclusions on scientific truth because it can be proven to be true. A religion can be true but since it can never be proven true all people will never agree that it is true. This is logic 101 stuff.

If it cannot be proven to be true, then you are never justified in saying it is true. Again, this is logic 101.

Spiritual reality is revealed in Scriptures of various religions, that is the only method of study and it is reliable.

The wildly inconsistent results beg to differ.

I do not appeal to gut feelings, I appeal to scriptures, which are the ONLY way anyone can know anything about God or spiritual reality.

Again, the wildly inconsistent results beg to differ.

We are not talking about science, we are talking about religion. Why do you keep bringing up science and conflating science with religion? That is the fallacy of false equivalency so it is illogical.

The fact people reach different conclusions about religion is evidence that people are all different in how they think and process information, and since religion can never be proven to be true as science can be proven to be true people are free to disagree on which if any religions are true.

You really need to pay attention. I've stated many times now that any method which claims to be able to discover accurate information about reality MUST be held to the same standard. That is, we need some way to verify it. Your repeated insistence that religion be exempt from having to support its claims only shows that it has no basis as a method by which to find accurate information.

I cannot show it to you, each person needs to show it to themselves. The mistake atheists make is that they ‘believe’ that believers are responsible to show them that their religion is true.

In other words, the best you got is opinion, not fact.

 

[Tiberius]

We should not claim we know but we can believe that we know. If that knowledge comes from God we can know for certain.

I got knowledge from God that your religious beliefs are wrong. I know it for certain because it came from God. So you can't disagree with me and you must accept that your religious views are wrong.

There is such a thing as something that is true for everyone, but not everyone is going to agree on a truth unless it can be proven to be true.

And if you can't prove it, then there's no reason to see it as anything more than an interesting idea.

I need no excuses for believing in spiritual reality.

And yet you rely on excuses to justify your belief in a spiritual reality.

Religion and science are describing a DIFFERENT aspect of reality – material vs. spiritual -- so they have different methods and standards.

And luckily for religion, the standards it has to meet are so low that any old nonsense could meet them.

All you have come up with is cases where scientific truths that have been proven to be true and people agree on these truths. People will never universally agree on religious truths that cannot be proven to be facts. It is obvious why. Everyone has free will to choose what to believe. Our belief choices are based upon our desires and preferences and our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, and adult experiences. All these factors contribute to how we view the SAME evidence.

I agree. It is obvious why.

Religion is bunk.

It has no objectively true bearing on reality at all.

 

[Sheldon]

You have yet to tell us why any evidence that is produced is not "objective"?
Does objective evidence only include "seeing God", or what?

It involves more than bare subjective claims, which is all you have offered.

 

[Sheldon]

You can say whatever you want if you want to look foolish. Why would babysitters and child care be necessary if children can be responsible for themselves and other children?

God did not create that life, the parents created life when they had sex and had children.

God gave humans a brain and free will so they could be responsible for themselves.

Humans evolved, as have all living things, this is supported by a weight of objective evidence beyond any reasonable or rational denial.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It has exactly as much validity as every other religion, which is to say, zero.

Who are you? The knower of all things?
Are you a computer who can only think in terms of binary true and false?

You could at least have said, "which is to say, 0.1%",
Not zero

 

[muhammad_isa]

It involves more than bare subjective claims, which is all you have offered.

You don't "offer" anything other than denial

 

[muhammad_isa]

God can not see what I am going to do tomorrow and then communicate that information to the past.

Oh dear .. what can you not understand about "the present" only being in our frame of reference?
You can't talk about tommorow and the past as being definitive, as "the present" is only our perspective.

I repeat, an observer that is moving at a speed approaching that of light, relative to our frame of reference, does not share our perception of "the present".

Example
------------
Five years on a ship traveling at 99 percent the speed of light (2.5 years out and 2.5 years back) corresponds to roughly 36 years on Earth. When the spaceship returned to Earth, the people onboard would come back 31 years in their future--but they would be only five years older than when they left.

Combining the above with the fact that two events that are simultaneous when observed from some particular reference frame can no longer be considered simultaneous when observed from another reference frame moving relative to the first, we see that such a reference frame exists that is possible to know our future.

Can you explain why that relativity of simultaneity is limited to seconds or minutes?
Is it to do with the relative speed differences? The reference frame(s)?
The inability to move at the speed of light?
What exactly?

 

[Hidingfromyou]

In your mind, yes. Problem is, there is evidence for the one true God but there is no evidence for Thor. Thor is a mythical creature.

In Germanic mythology, Thor (/θɔːr/; from Old Norse: Þórr [ˈθoːrː]) is a hammer-wielding god associated with lightning, thunder, storms, sacred groves and trees, strength, the protection of mankind, hallowing, and fertility.

Thor - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Thor

Nope. No evidence of the deity you believe in. Of course, like Thor believers, you really, just really gosh know that your deity exists because of all the evidence. Thor believers know the same about their deity.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Who are you? The knower of all things?
Are you a computer who can only think in terms of binary true and false?

You could at least have said, "which is to say, 0.1%",
Not zero

No. All make believe has exactly the same validity, which is zero. Your make believe is equal to any fiction.

Zero I'm afraid.

If you want to prove me wrong, just present a single explanatory model where your deity fits in and makes it work better, offers us testability and disprovability.

You won't be able to, but don't feel bad. Make believe doesn't do that well.

 

[Sheldon]

You don't "offer" anything other than denial

Not even that, disbelief is all I am prepared to infer from bare subjective claims, a denial is reserved for when there is an epistemological or rational challenge to a claim.