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

[muhammad_isa]

It is an objective fact that the world is not flat. So is the shape of the earth influenced by our subjective opinion?

The shape of the world is the shape of the world.
Some people believe it is flat, but the vast majority believe in reality

Objectivity is a scale, and a fact is not an absolute.

I know. However, I haven't seen you accepting any kind of evidence other than empirical evidence as objective.

If I'm wrong, you can show me otherwise.

 

[Trailblazer]

So when speciation occurs we won't be humans, and you claimed humans differ from all other animals, so when we evolve into a different animal what happens then?

What reason do you have to believe that humans will evolve into a different animal?

 

[Trailblazer]

You made the following claims, relating to a scientific theory.

Again then, your claims are entirely unevidenced, are not remotely needed or evidenced in all of evolutionary science. So you tacking them in there is meaningless.

I said: God is responsible for the process of evolution God can intervene at any time.

That was not a claim relating to a scientific theory, it was a claim related to my belief.

Religious beliefs are not remotely needed or evidenced in evolutionary science, but this is a religious forum, not a science forum.

 

[Sheldon]

I know. However, I haven't seen you accepting any kind of evidence other than empirical evidence as objective.

If I'm wrong, you can show me otherwise.

Well I don't accept unevidenced subjective claims, though I would accept a rational argument in the right context. Beyond that I'm not sure what you're asserting I have not accepted?

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course it can if religions make falsifiable claims, or offer data to be examined. Geology demonstrates that the Noah flood myth is errant nonsense,

Yes, science can prove that certain religious beliefs such as the Noah flood and the bodily resurrection and the bodily ascension of Jesus are wrong.

What I meant is that science cannot test a religion and prove that it is true.

Science absolutely has predictive power, that's an essential requirement of the method. I am not aware of any objective evidence that religions have predictive powers, just claims.

Again, I said that off the top of my head because I was completely buried in posts yesterday so I was very hurried. Of course science can predict things, but so can religion.

It can't breed mermaids either, what's your point?

My point was that science cannot explain anything about spirituality or the spiritual world.

Humans were not created they evolved.

I know that humans evolved.
Science does not know anything about why God created the human soul and why we are here.

Of course it has, geology has demonstrated that the global flood myth is errant nonsense, evolution shows that even as allegory Genesis is errant nonsense. As 2 examples.

That is only one religion, Christianity. Science has not demonstrated ALL religious claims about the nature of reality have zero merit.

It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to generalize from one religion and assume all religions and their claims are the same.

 

[Trailblazer]

Firstly you have stated repeatedly that there is no objective evidence for your deity.

Secondly the evidence not being influenced by personal opinion is not just logically possible, that is precisely what objective means.

I have stated that the objective evidence for the deity are the Messengers of that deity.

The evidence not being influenced by personal opinion is not logically possible because the human brain does not work that way.

 

[Tiberius]

Because He loves them…

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

So? Does love create responsibility?

That is just the sad reality off this earthly life.

Yeah, funny that.

When it's stuff that can't be proven, God does stuff all the time. When it's stuff that, if it happened, would be strong evidence for God, nothing happens and it's just a "sad reality."

God cares because He loves us and He wants what is best for us. God does not need anything for Himself so that is one way we know that whatever we get is only by God’s mercy and grace.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

I still don’t know why it seems that way.

Yeah, God loves us and cares for us so much, but he refuses to step in and act if such action would reveal himself to everyone. But he wants everyone to know about him.

Right...

 

[Tiberius]

How could it be wrong if it was proven to be true?

You tell me, you're the one who claimed it!

You said, "...proof does not make anything true" in post 3826.

What is unconvincing about it?

It's handwavium.

Actual truth in reality changes over time. Even scientific truths change over time when new things are discovered so why wouldn’t religious truths also change?

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand how science works. Scientific truths do not change. Our understanding of them changes, but not the objective facts about our universe.

Spiritual truth is the same in all the religions...

Hahahahahahahaaha

Yes, that's why there's no conflict at all between the different religions, because they all preach the same thing!

so it never changes but the message of the Messenger and the social teachings and laws change every time a new religion is revealed because people and the world people live in changes over time.

So if the messenger changes, the message he brings changes, the religions change, the times change and the people change, what are you using as the basis for your claim that spiritual truths do not change?

This makes logical sense as there would be no reason for God to send a new Messenger unless He came with a new message. Do you think it makes more sense what Christians believe, that God only sends one man, Jesus, with a message that applies for all time and eternity? That makes no sense to me because that would mean that all the other religions are wrong, and that can’t be true because it is utterly illogical. If God is a loving and just God, how could He only care about Christians who are only about one third of the world population?

Logical fallacy. Argument from incredulity.

If that is what you believe that is what you believe. Verification is just a word and maybe it is the wrong word to convey what I am trying to convey. It is difficult to put into words.

It most definitely is the wrong word to use.

And I've told you many times that what you are talking about is nothing more than convincing yourself that your opinion is true.

I cannot prove what I believe is true to anyone else, not unless they were really receptive and wanted to understand, and believed what I was telling them. How many people do you believe fit that description? Most people only believe anything is true because they found it out for themselves.

In other words, people won't believe you unless they believe you.

The bigger question is why atheists think it is a believer’s job to prove to them that their belief is true. Unless we are trying to convince them it is true it is not our job.

Because the person who says, "God/my religion is real," is the one who has the burden of proof.

 

[Tiberius]

Opinion and belief.

Belief, at least in the religious sense, is opinion.

Maybe proof is the wrong word, but it is just a word. When you know something is true, you know, because you were convinced by the evidence.

Yes, it is the wrong word.

And being convinced by evidence does not mean that what you are convinced of is true.

I did not have to convince myself, I was convinced by the evidence, and in fact all the atheists I have posted to here have told me that is what would be necessary for them to believe in God. - convinced by the evidence.

But not all of us find the evidence convincing.

No, it would not meet my standards because I have very high standards for a religion.

And yet you don't require any way to double check your conclusions to eliminate any errors you may have made, such as getting other people to check your reasoning. Not that high, it seems.

Spiritual reality exists so in that sense it is objective truth.

Prove it.

I don’t expect you to believe that based upon my assurance. I would never believe something just because someone told me so. I would want to look at the evidence for myself but if I tell you what the evidence is and you say “that’s not evidence” then there is no more I can do.

Maybe that should tell you that you don't actually have any evidence.

If you really want to know if a spiritual reality exists you are going to have to work on determining that. I can tell you what the evidence is and answer questions but I cannot convince you unless you are open to what I say.

I'll tell you what, how about we do it like this. Let's figure out something that should be there if spiritual reality exists, but should NOT be there if there is no spiritual reality. Then, we''ll go and see if that thing exists. If we find it, then it supports the idea that there is a spiritual reality. But if we don't find it, it supports the idea that there is no spiritual reality. Does that sound good to you?

 

[Tiberius]

That is why I do not "claim" it is true, I only say “I believe” it is true. I can believe it is true and I do not need to justify my belief to anyone.

Doesn't change the fact that there is no justification for the things you say.

How many people so you think are like that?

Irrelevant. It's an ideal that we should strive towards, not necessarily representing any actual person. Like those riddles where there are some people who always lie and some people who always tell the truth.

But even then it would never work because there are too many intervening factors, too many variables that would prevent it from working the way you think it would.

Funny how that's never an issue with other things that are objective.

Far from that, I was just desperately trying to drive my point home and I had no other option.

My main points were as follows:

A true seeker has NEVER already concluded that some religious belief is true. If they had concluded that before seeking it, they would not be a true seeker because there would be nothing to seek if they believed they already had the truth.

A true seeker would NEVER reach their conclusion and then seek evidence to support that conclusion. They would FIRST look for evidence and then draw their conclusions from that evidence.

How could a person be a true seeker if they had already found what they were seeking?

In seeking God, one must put aside all acquired knowledge and all attachments to what one wants; one must put aside both love and hate; one must wash away both pride and vain-glory; and one must cling to patience.

The problem is that if someone sets out to find God, then they are starting from the assumption that there is a God to find.

 

[Tiberius]

It is a hypothetical understanding, which I find convincing..

In the first days of our universe’s existence, the Eternal clock saw 144 hours pass. We now know that this quantity of time need not bear similarity to the time lapse measured at another part of the universe. As dwellers within the universe, we estimate the passage of time with clocks found in our particular, local reference frame; clocks such as radioactive dating, geologic placement, and measurements of rates and distances in an expanding universe. It is with these clocks that humanity travels.

Not everybody understands science..
One cannot categorically prove that God exists through science.
However, we can show how it is theoretically possible for an observer to know the future, and that time passes at different rates, depending on reference frames.

Anybody who claims otherwise, does not understand Einstein's theory of relativity..
..and that seems to include you.

Yes, it does allow for time travel into the future. Travel fast enough and your perception of time, so getting to a point a hundred years in your future, you would only experience a few seconds.

But for a person at the present time to have knowledge of the future while they are still in the present requires that knowledge of the future travels BACKWARDS in time back to the present. And travel backwards in time is not allowed in Einstein's theories. It would require travelling faster than light, which is forbidden by the theory you are trying to use.

 

[rational experiences]

Two types of human man theist.

The converter hot radiation visionary. Who theories eArths mass to convert.

The spatial theist law about pressures. Who stated God O earth owned o.little metal sealed space core.

Space was sealed by cold metal pressures as the space law. The core of space is a metal he said. Cold.

Satanist theist I want to convert space law by hot radiation says he will destroy space laws owned metal. I want to wield my change to cold space conditions.

By irrationally claiming heat as first space law.

Cold metal. The law space pressure in evolution why all things are present. Gods laws. Space was sealed.

Was and is the only taught human space law about God zero space cold metals only. Evolution of space conditions says science is the law.

Not in any term discussing life bio healing on earth. Bio life kept sick by hot water evaporation conditions melting ice our saviour mass of god.

Science wanted to own a reactive conversion by machine first...hot then heal it as if it never occurred. The formula. The reaction. Says in theory first how science conditions were healed.

In bio life we don't live by scientific laws theorising thinking history of.

 

[samtonga43]

Some Christians believe that humans evolved but many Christians believe that humans were created by God according to what it says in Genesis

.
Have you never heard of Theistic Evolution?

What does this have to do with logic?

An interesting question from someone so attached to logic. You said:
"I agree, humans evolved. I am not a Christian",
The logical fallacy here is :
Hasty Generalization: A conclusion that is reached is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

.
Have you never heard of Theistic Evolution?

Mainline Protestants and the Catholic Church reconcile modern science with their faith in Creation through forms of theistic evolution which hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature, and accept evolution. Some groups call their belief evolutionary creationism.

Creationism - Wikipedia

.
An interesting question from someone so attached to logic. You said:
"I agree, humans evolved. I am not a Christian",
The logical fallacy here is :
Hasty Generalization: A conclusion that is reached is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence.

It is logically justified to conclude that Christians are creationists who reject evolutionary theory since the majority are.

 

[Trailblazer]

So? Does love create responsibility?

No, not necessarily. God loves us but God is not responsible for us. We are responsible for ourselves.

Yeah, funny that.

When it's stuff that can't be proven, God does stuff all the time. When it's stuff that, if it happened, would be strong evidence for God, nothing happens and it's just a "sad reality."

It is not me who is saying God does stuff. I have no idea what God is doing at any time. I only say what God has done. I believe that God sent Messengers, but other than that I have no idea what God is doing.

Yeah, God loves us and cares for us so much, but he refuses to step in and act if such action would reveal himself to everyone. But he wants everyone to know about him.

Right.

Yes, that is how it works. God never reveals Himself to anyone. God wants everyone to know about Him through His Messengers.

 

[CG Didymus]

You are wrong about that, dead wrong.

Do you have any logical abilities?

Look at the context of what I said. There were no personal attacks and no disrespect. I was disagreeing with what was said, that is all.

"You"? sounds personal to me. You could have said, "I believe you're wrong." But then to say they don't have any logical abilities? That isn't a respectful thing to say.

And how would you feel if, or maybe when, a Christian or an Atheist tells you that you are "dead" wrong and you have zero logical capabilities, They are talking about you. They are being very personal. But it's different when you do it?

 

[CG Didymus]

Everything that was predicted in the Bible has come true and the remainder of the prophecies will be fulfilled in due time.

Nonsense.

How do you know it is nonsense, have you done the necessary research into the Bible prophecies and how they were fulfilled?

Thief in the Night by William Sears

I don't really care because I do not need the prophecies.

So again, have you done the necessary research? Yet, you say everything has been fulfilled or will be fulfilled. But you don't care to research it? So, you are taking Bill Sears word for it? And every "prophecy" you've quoted has had problems with it. It's only "icing" to Baha'is. A reason to doubt and suspect the validity of the claims for many of those who do research and investigate, because so many of them are one verse taken out of context. Attempts by Baha'is to tie it in with the context only make it worse. And it shouldn't. It should help and support the interpretation.

 

[CG Didymus]

God loves us but God is not responsible for us. We are responsible for ourselves.

Is there a quote from the Baha'i writings that supports this? 'Cause it seems like God would be more involved like he is for Christians. He sends angels and the Holy Spirit to guide and protect them. Or are they misinterpreting things?

 

[CG Didymus]

God wants everyone to know about Him through His Messengers.

What did we learn about God from the Buddha? I was under the impression that Buddha taught a way that others could follow to become enlightened the same as he was. Or is that a false teaching about Buddha and the only true one is where it quotes him speaking about God?

 

[CG Didymus]

That is not what I meant by spiritual truths, those are religious beliefs about the afterlife.

And those beliefs about who God is and what happens to people after they die change? 'Cause there sure seems to be different things being said in the Scriptures of different religions.