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

[Trailblazer]

So he can speak from the sky.

So He can also destroy every living thing on earth in one split second.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is the claim of omnipotence contains innate contradictions.

No, that is not the problem at all, at all....
There are NO contradictions.

The problem with omnipotence -- which is only a problem for atheists -- is that it means that God only does what He chooses to do, NOT what atheists think He would/should do......
That is what I call tough luck.

 

[Trailblazer]

If omnipotent a deity could communicate it's existence in an instant to every living human, by will alone, and in a way none of them could doubt.

The omnipotent deity could co that, but only if He wanted to.
An omnipotent deity ONLY does what He wants to do, not what atheists want Him to do.
That is why flies completely over the heads of atheists.... it's sad really.
and then they accuse me of logical fallacies.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your claim is reiterated by theists who arrive at the conclusions an entirely different deity exists, you cannot all be right, and there is no objective difference by your own admission.

No, theists cannot all be right about everything that they believe, but they can all be right about the things they agree on.

Since God reveals updates, the most recent Revelation from God has the most accurate information and the current message from God, and it explains what went wrong in the former religions.

I never said there is no objective difference between religions, there are plenty of objective differences. I only ever said there is no objective evidence for God.

 

[Truthseeker]

This thread is sooo long.

 

[Trailblazer]

This thread is sooo long.

Tell me about it.

 

[Kfox]

I'm back! My Hotel has a public computer I can use, so I will be able to respond when it is avaliable.

I never said that God is unable to speak English, I said that God communicates in a language humans could never understand.

Okay; let me restate. If God were to address the entire world in a language we can understand, I would find that convincing.

Not another nonbeliever who believes that God actually did what the Bible says. Sorry, I do not believe in the anthropomorphic God. As I just told @CG Didymus that Bible is a good reason for atheism. It is also responsible for all the illogical and fanciful thinking people have about what God could do.

Yeah; I made the mistake of assuming your God was similar to the Abrahamic God; I was wrong; my bad. But to answer your question, it wouldn't matter if I could verify the voice from the sky was your idea of God, a voice from the sky would convince ME that it was real, and because for me there is no such a thing as God, the entire question in nonsense because it presupposes there is such a thing as God and asks what would convince me of it's existence. Whether the voice calls itself a God, a Titan, a Fairy, or whatever, I would assume the voice were real and have no preconceived beliefs concerning what it is; but I would believe it were real.

So if you believe in the God expressed in the Bible is real, why not believe in the Bible and be a Christian?

I was responding under the context that the Abrahamic God were real, even though I don't believe that it is.

God does not care if people choose not to believe He exists and God needs nobody's belief since God is fully self-sustaining and fully self-sufficient.

So why the question? If your God doesn't care if I believe he is real, why do you care? Why do you ask what would convince me?

According to the statistics, 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

Yeah; but they don't share the same faith, so they aren't in the same club.

Because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. It does not matter if you call them a Messenger; they are holy men who founded the religions, so they are intermediaries between God and man. Sure, there are a few believers who believe in God but not a Messenger but that is not the norm. The point is that with no Messengers or holy men very few people would believe in God.

Why would a God that does not care if we believe he exist need a messenger? Consider the possibility that those (so called) messengers are a fraud.

I did not say God could not speak from the clouds. The logical mistake that nonbelievers make is thinking that just because God can do anything that means God should do everything they want God to do. That is drop dead illogical because an omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do, NOT what humans want Him to do.

That was in answering your question. I'm not saying what he should or shouldn't do, just what I would find convincing.

 

[Kfox]

You've got to be joking..
Why should anybody accept its authority if what "the voice" says doesn't suit them?
eg. it demotes them from their current worldly status

There is no compulsion to believe in spiritual truth. That is the whole point.

My response was concerning people who are interested in the truth. For such people such a voice would be very convincing regardless of whether it suits them or not.

 

[samtonga43]

We know that God does not speak from the sky.

God is all the omnis.
Therefore He can do anything.

So what?

So he can speak from the sky.

So He can also destroy every living thing on earth in one split second.

Logical Fallacy = Ignoratio Elenchi

 

[samtonga43]

The omnipotent deity could co that, but only if He wanted to.
An omnipotent deity ONLY does what He wants to do, not what atheists want Him to do.
That is why flies completely over the heads of atheists.... it's sad really.
and then they accuse me of logical fallacies.

Isn't it illogical to suppose that atheists really want God to do something or other?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The obvious inference is that anyone who does not share your belief is insincere and or has not made enough effort. Since the majority of humans do not share your beliefs, the maths is pretty simple.

You see a black-and-white world.
I don't.

I consistently tell people that I see that people of all faiths can be sincere.
However, G-d knows who is sincere and who is not.
One cannot determine that through simple-maths

We don't all necessarily stick to one creed throughout our lives.
One cannot deduce that G-d is unable to guide us due to the existence of different creeds. There are many reasons for people identifying with a creed.
..and G-d is aware of what we proclaim and what we hide.

 

[Sheldon]

No, that is not the problem at all, at all....
There are NO contradictions.

Omnipotence paradox

The problem with omnipotence -- which is only a problem for atheists -- is that it means that God only does what He chooses to do, NOT what atheists think He would/should do......
That is what I call tough luck.

You seem to not understand what atheism means, if you think atheists spend their thinking a deity can do things. You also don't seem to understand what omnipotence means. I don't believe omnipotence is possible, in a deity or otherwise, since no one can demonstrate any objective evidence to support the idea. I'm also inclined to believe ideas that can lead to logical contradictions, like omnipotence, are not possible. So when I discuss it, it is only as a hypothetical, something else you seem not understand. You also appear to be unaware of these paradoxes, try the link above in that case. Most theists use rationalisations to wave these notions away, but of course logically this won't do.

 

[Sheldon]

The omnipotent deity could co that, but only if He wanted to.
An omnipotent deity ONLY does what He wants to do, not what atheists want Him to do.

How can want something from a deity one does not believe exists? You don't seem to understand these discussions are solely hypothetical if one is an atheist.

That is why flies completely over the heads of atheists.... it's sad really.
and then they accuse me of logical fallacies.

Given that is a type of no true Scotsman fallacy, I'm guessing the irony is wasted on you. I don't accept ideas as real without sufficient objective evidence, and your assertions here are entirely unevidenced, as they always are of course. You don't even seem to know that the concept of omnipotence contains innate paradoxes, which you think you can dismiss with mere handwaving. Though that is pretty much your default modus operandi.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Omnipotence paradox
...
..Most theists use rationalisations to wave these notions away, but of course logically this won't do.

On the contrary, it is based on dishonesty.

It hardly merits an answer .. it is rather pathetic to ask questions that are purposely designed to confuse through word-play.
It's just another example to show how silly atheists can be

 

[Sheldon]

No, theists cannot all be right about everything that they believe, but they can all be right about the things they agree on.

They cannot all be right about the deity they believe is real, the rest is coloured bubbles. many of them arrive at that belief in that particular deity using the exact method you claim is evidence for the one you have decided is real, and as I have said, and you agreed, there is no objective difference between these deities.

Since God reveals updates,

Since you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for a deity, how much use is this unevidenced claim about that deity do you imagine? You might as well be discussing unicorn husbandry...

the most recent Revelation from God

Again there is no objective evidence for any deity, nor therefore that it has revealed anything.

has the most accurate information and the current message from God, and it explains what went wrong in the former religions.

Yes they all claim that, Muslims will dismiss your claim as their prophet Muhammed claimed to be god's last messenger. Again there is no objective difference here, just humans, imagining deities, and creating elaborate claims they choose to believe are evidence for its existence. The "information" you provided amounted to nothing more than bare claims, and irrational arguments.

I never said there is no objective difference between religions, there are plenty of objective differences.

Give me half a dozen then please?

I only ever said there is no objective evidence for God.

Well there you go.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


Well there you go.

Well, for objective evidence, there is no objective evidence for the claim, that claims without objective evidence are meaningless or whatever. All those variants are 1st person qualitative evaluations and have no objective referent.
So if you believe in one of those variants of a negative evaluation, you believe in something without objective evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
..Most theists use rationalisations to wave these notions away, but of course logically this won't do.

On the contrary, it is based on dishonesty.

It hardly merits an answer .. it is rather pathetic to ask questions that are purposely designed to confuse through word-play.
It's just another example to show how silly atheists can be

Well there you go, you very promptly offer just the kind of vapid hand waving I was referring to. One can only infer you are content to hold irrational beliefs, and prefer to childishly lash out at those who explain them, than offer cogent debate.

If the article is dishonest (I didn't write it btw) then you might attempt to explain why? I'm sure many philosophers and theologians who have struggled with these paradoxes would be very grateful for your erudition on this?

I hope it's better than your attempts to insert a deity into scientific theories.

Omnipotence paradox

You don't even need to think about it, since others have already attempted responses to this. The fact you prefer to resort derogating hand waving says a great deal.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm sure many philosophers and theologians who have struggled with these paradoxes would be very grateful for your erudition on this?

There is no struggle.
It's the same as in the incompatibilitist / free-will argument.
It's logically unsound. It uses language to purposely confuse.

Basically, it asserts that the definition of omnipotence implies that G-d can do the logically absurd.
It is a false claim. It is pathetic.

 

[samtonga43]

How can want something from a deity one does not believe exists? You don't seem to understand these discussions are solely hypothetical if one is an atheist.

Yes, this is just what I meant in my above post. Tb is completely irrational if she really believes that atheists want anything at all from God.

She is actually becoming more and more irrational as she tries to tell us just how irrational we are, compared to her. Delicious irony!

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, I know that every religion has a different message and there is no agreement but there is no reason to believe that would be any different if they all heard the single voice form the sky, because no two people think alike.

The problem... every religion and every sect within a religion has different messages and then different interpretations of those different messages. A single voice is one message, so then the problem would be how different people interpret that message.

The obvious solution is for everyone to recognize and believe in the latest Messenger from God, Baha'u'llah, but that is not going to happen for a long time because people have free will and most people choose to stay with the religion they have chosen, usually the religion they were raised in.

Which isn't that much different from God's voice proclaiming it from the sky. So, the damage has already been done. Inconsistent messages have already gotten people to believe one message and reject the others. So, a new message, or new voice from the sky, is already up against beliefs that have been established and believed to be true. And the new message contradicts most all of those old messages.

You don’t have to think the same in order to hear the same message.

And TB, this is what the Baha'i Faith has. One message. All Baha'i hear that same message. And things are put in place to limit how that message is interpreted. Go too far and a person gets voting rights taken away or even declared a covenant breaker.

But is all the talk about who's right on who's wrong about beliefs helping move the world towards the desired goal of peace and unity? The way the Baha'i Faith is presented to people, as being new and necessary for the advancement of civilization, to move towards a global community with one religion, isn't bringing people together. It's keeping people divided into their respective religions and causing them to focus and argue why theirs is right and has the correct message from God and the correct interpretation of that message. And Baha'is are putting themselves into that debate. And how many people are going to listen? Hundreds of pages of post between Baha'is, Atheists, various type of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others.

So, the Baha'i voice is heard, but people don't believe it is God's voice they are hearing. And how many people are going to look at his character, his mission, and his writings, and the "icing" on the cake, the prophecies and get convinced and think... "Ah yes, that is the voice of God"?