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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, that is not logical. Just because some men who claim to speak for God are not really speaking for God that does not mean that some men who claim to speak for God are not really speaking for God.

The existence of false messengers of God does not prove that there are no true Messengers of God.

Of course many people claim to be Messengers of God, or even God Himself, but that does not mean that a true Messenger of God would not also claim that. Of course He would claim that because He would want people to know who He was and what His message was.

It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because many people falsely claim to be Messengers of God, therefore there have never been any true Messengers of God. What indicates whether a man was a true Messenger a God is the evidence that backs up his claims.

Seems like you're missing the point.

- do you agree that there are people who claim to speak for their gods who aren't evidence for their gods?

- if so, what do your purported "Messengers" have going for them that those other purported prophets don't?

- if the answer is "nothing," then the standard you've used for other purported prophets suggests you should be fine with your purported "Messengers" being rejected just as you've rejected other people who claim to speak for God.

Is that clearer?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you were doing animal research, in the field, to seek out and identify new and rare species, these new and rare species do not jump up and down and come to your camp, to be cataloged. You need to figure out and go to their habitat, look for signs and then quietly wait until they hopefully appear.

God is a very rare and elusive species and his habitat is not the science laboratory. Why would he go there? You must seek him out in his own habitat and there look for signs. Atheists claim to be on the side of science but they do not have a clue when it comes to investigative research. How many new species just appear in your lab?

This peekaboo god you suggests sounds like a much smaller and insignificant god than the one preached by most monotheistic religions.

 

[F1fan]

The Messengers are evidence that God exists but the claim of the Messenger is NOT evidence because that would be circular reasoning.
Do you understand what I mean?

This doesn't work.

Anyone who claims to be a messenger of god can ONLY be assessed by what they themselves claim is the message. You've posted many quotes from the messengers you think are authentic but reading what they say is not very impressive. It could be easily conjured in mortal minds. So if we reject what messengers say that in no way is ANY evidence that ANY god exists. It only tells us that there are mortals who believe they are messengers.

Now if a person who claims to be a messenger was able to offer prophecy that was detailed enough to not be luck then tHAT would be some evidence that they are tapped into some special powers. It still wouldn't mean that power is a god.

If a messenger had a long list of detailed prophecies that were well beyond luck, and this person said these visions were due to a god, then THAT would be evidence that the person might be correct. There would be loads of scrutiny and tests by objective minds, and if this messenger was able to answer and be correct then the evidence would become more and more credible.

What you have presented is weak. The messages are not impressive, and could easily be conjured in a mortal mind.

So the only way for a messenger to be evidence of a god is IF what they said had an incredible record of knowledge that could not be known by an ordinary person. And they would have to be free of error in what they say. They would have to be questioned and able to give true and detailed answers. You offer none of this, so you CAN'T claim that messengers are evidence of god.

 

[F1fan]

Seems like you're missing the point.

- do you agree that there are people who claim to speak for their gods who aren't evidence for their gods?

- if so, what do your purported "Messengers" have going for them that those other purported prophets don't?

- if the answer is "nothing," then the standard you've used for other purported prophets suggests you should be fine with your purported "Messengers" being rejected just as you've rejected other people who claim to speak for God.

Is that clearer?

Right. If an authentic Messenger is to be judged by the "eye of the beholder" then how credible is the stamp of authenticity? Christians will stamp their messengers, Mormons will stamp their messengers, Muslims will stamp their messengers, and all the others won't be authenticated because their messages are inconsistent. So Trailblazer is back to square 1.

 

[F1fan]

But you are assuming that they are a messenger of God. How do you determine that? What is your claim based upon. Are you going back to your failed prophecies. It was explained why they are not evidence that the person is a messenger of God.

If you and me claimed to be messengers from God and we contradicted everything TB believes in, will she have no choice but to accept what we say, and thus WE are evidence that OUR God exists (even if what we say is total nonsense we made up)?

To my mind this is the problem, if messengers as a category prove God exists, then it wouldn't matter that what all these messengers say is nonsense or not.

A messenger can ONLY be evidence of a God IF that messenger offers statements that it is impossible for a mortal mind to know, and clairvoyance was ruled out. There's a lot of missing details for this "evidence of God".

 

[Nimos]

God's first useless act (even if a God exists) was to create the universe where black holes prey on galaxies. Why could he not be content with his angels? Instead of creating Adam and Eve, he could have created a Goddess and have fun with her. You do one thing wrong then get flooded by wrong things.
And who created such deadly bats?

Have to be careful not to make strawman arguments. Because unless you know God's motivation or why a universe without black holes should be considered better than one with them, you simply make assertions that God did something useless.
The bible, doesn't spend a lot of time, if any, dealing with these issues, most likely because they had no clue about it.

Based on the bible, God created Adam assumingly because he thought it was good, and Eve because he didn't think he should be alone, which is his motivation for pretty much everything he created, he saw that these things were good, whatever that means.
Also who said God is interested in fun with a Goddess, again unless someone knows what his motivations are this is not a valid argument, simply assuming that this is what God want.

If we as humans hold the believe (which we probably do) that Covid is bad for us rather than good, then we can question why a God who is claimed to care for us would not prevent it from happening in the first place, based on our understanding of what it means that something is good, Which doesn't necessarily mean that God agree. However it does lead to a lot of issues or questions in regards to the Fall etc. But that is another issue.

Black holes as far as I know is also what holds together galaxies and maybe they have other vital importance for a functional Universe, that we do not know about. So the logic question should be, why are these needed, couldn't God just have made the galaxies spin around without them?

 

[F1fan]

Sorry but no. I don’t have to prove it just because I believe something is true.

This is you IGNORING challenges to your claims. When a question is inconvenient for you and your claims/beliefs you ignore them. This is debate. You participating means you are accountable to others who challenge what you post.

I have facts.

You post what you THINK are facts.

For example, you claim that Messengers are evidence of God. This is not true UNLESS you meet a very high burden of proof, and you have not met that to the satisfaction of standards of evidence.

You do not know if I am biased. Highly skilled thinkers like you?

Your posts make it very clear. Above you admit to avoiding giving evidence of your dubious claims. That indicates bias.

If you do not care about my beliefs why do you keep asking me about them? Please leave me alone.

LOL. This is an open debate forum. You volunteer to subject yourself to scrutiny every time you post your beliefs. You seem to feel entitled to be free from scrutiny. If you find the questions uncomfortable your only option is to not post.

Doesn't your prophet teach about personal responsibility?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Based on the bible, God created Adam assumingly because he thought it was good,

I am an atheist and a Hindu. Do not expect me to take Bible as any God's word. God created Adam and thought it was good and it did not turn out to be good. Hail this God who does not know the result of his actions.
Then again during Noah's time, he found that his creation was not good and sent a universal flood where water rose above the highest mountain.
His creation still remains wanting for many things even after all the prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis that he dispatched. Hallelujah.

 

[Nimos]

God is a very rare and elusive species and his habitat is not the science laboratory. Why would he go there?

God is said to be everywhere right? So what makes you think he wouldn't also be there?

The question is what is the nature of spirit and where is its habitat?

This would make no difference from what I can see, If you believe that God is an intervening one, meaning that he interact with the material world, shouldn't we be able to demonstrate that? And if he doesn't why should we care about him?

If you believe that you can pray to God and he react to those, then he is intervening with the material world, whether that is making things better for you in whatever way, or whether that is making you feel more calm emotionally. If you believe that these things happens then we should also be able to measure God, shouldn't we? And therefore it wouldn't matter what habitat God exist in. Because as it is now, we only have methods or tools for working with the material world.

Faith is the belief in things not seen. Faith is not based on what come from the outside; seen things.

I would disagree with this. You can have faith in things you can see as well, I could have faith that the old half rotten wooden bridge will not collapse, when I try to walk across it.

The reason I would have faith in that, is because I do not have the knowledge of whether the bridge will in fact not collapse when I cross it. If I had that knowledge and through lots of testing and examinations of the bridge knew that it could easily hold my weight then I wouldn't need to have faith in it.

Therefore faith is simply the lack of knowledge, whether it can be seen or not.

The doubter requires that the innovator create a hardware show; robot has to walk, so they can see to believe. But the idea existed to the faithful, way before the hardware demonstration.

Again I would disagree. The doubters would simply see the robot as an idea, whether it will work (be true) or not (not true) will have to be demonstrated.

Those with faith simply take the word of the innovator for good, and assume that this idea of a robot will work (be true) without demanding any demonstration.

 

[F1fan]

I am an atheist and a Hindu. Do not expect me to take Bible as any God's word. God created Adam and thought it was good and it did not turn out to be good. Hail this God who does not know the result of his actions.
Then again during Noah's time, he found that his creation was not good and sent a universal flood where water rose above the highest mountain.
His creation still remains wanting for many things even after all the prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis that he dispatched. Hallelujah.

Then God created Bill Gates in his own image, who also is great at making flawed things that keep needing fixes.

 

[oldbadger]

I meant that the definition (that everything is the same thing as 'god') seems trivial to me. Why does calling it 'god' make the slightest difference to anything?


Okay then, I give up. I simply don't understand why just a change of name for 'everything' can help, but if it works for you, then I guess that's fine.

Well, yep, that's what it's about for me.

Like I say, Deism just doesn't offer the amazing goodies packages that theistic beliefs offer. No God to save yer side in wars, no fabulous heaven filled with gorgeous females offering treats n stuff.

The tariff is literally dust, not that far removed from a-theism if you like, but that lot are all stuck up and won't invite deists to tea or anything like that.

Deism and atheism both deny an involved God, but Deism accepts an uninvolved God.

 

[Nimos]

I am an atheist and a Hindu. Do not expect me to take Bible as any God's word. God created Adam and thought it was good and it did not turn out to be good. Hail this God who does not know the result of his actions.

Im an atheist as well. But in regards to making an argument, one can't simply assume that God did something wrong, as it would only make sense if it is done in relationship to something known. As with the example of Covid, if you believe that it is better for you to not get it, than to get it. Then you can question God's motivation. But assuming that God want to have fun with a goddess, is not a valid argument, because you have nothing to compare or relate such thing to.

I would agree that God could have done better with Adam and Eve, based on what God is said to be capable of. But again, I don't know what motivate him, since he thought it was great and especially as he is said to be all knowing.

Then again during Noah's time, he found that his creation was not good and sent a universal flood where water rose above the highest mountain.
His creation still remains wanting for many things even after all the prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis that he dispatched. Hallelujah.

I agree, there are a lot of issues here. As I also said in regard to the Fall, one would assume that Adam and Eve eating from the tree and gaining the ability to know the difference between good and evil, would see them the same way as God does. But its pretty obvious that we humans don't agree with God about this. So these are valid arguments, compared to the black hole and the goddess thing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The logical default for any unproven/unprovable truth claim is indecision. Not presumed falsity.

I think you misunderstood what was meant by, "the logical default for any given claim is that X is false." It's analogous to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If the prosecutor fails to make his case to the jury, the defendant is not declared innocent (he is declared not guilty), and it is understood that he may well be guilty, but he is treated as if he were innocent. That is the default position. When a theist fails to make his case for the existence of a god, the default position is unbelief. It is understood that this god may may exist, but it is treated as if it doesn't exist.

Clearly God exists, or we could not have this conversation.

If the existence of God were clear, like the existence of the sun is, we wouldn't need to have this discussion, would we? Because the sun's existence is clear, you don't hear a lot of debate asking for evidence for this sun. Because the existence of gods is far from clear, the world has thousands of them that somebody does or once did argue really exists, including you and your god.

The question is; HOW does God exist? In what way(s)? And how does God's existence effect us?

You've gone off the logic reservation now by introducing a unshared premise, God, your belief in which is the informal fallacy of non sequitur - it does not follow from what preceded it, making the belief a leap of faith. You've probably noticed that none of the critical thinkers debating you is willing to leap with you. And nothing based on an unshared premise is of much value to a skilled critical thinker. Whatever your answer to your question of how God affects us has no more meaning than the answer to how Zeus affects us until the existence of these things is established.

to ask these kinds of questions, we will have to acknowledge the great mystery of existence, itself. And there are a whole lot of people who do not want to face that kind of profound unknown. That's why they turn to religions that give them phony 'answers'

Are you still looking for answers to unanswerable questions? May I suggest secular humanism to you? The secular humanist eventually comes to understand that there are questions that he cannot answer, and accepts that with equanimity, just as he learns to accept by virtue of being removed from the influence of religions that offer false answers that there might be no afterlife, that consciousness might end at death, that we may never see our deceased loved ones again, that nobody is watching over us from afar or answering our prayers, and the like. One can become at peace with all of that if allowed to.

Pity the poor person who spends his whole life looking for a set of keys that he will never find. Compare him to the one who realizes that they will likely never be found, has come to peace with that, and is no longer worried about not being able to kind those keys.

It's commonly believed that religious belief, even if false, is comforting to the believer. But is it? Compare the demeanor of those here arguing on behalf of religious belief and those challenging their claims. Which has found peace?

The question is how are WE going to deal with it? With this great mystery of being that we are living in?

Already resolved. We can accept that there are questions that we may never have answers for, just like the lost keys, and move on to consider other issues.

What we are calling God is the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

No, that's what you call God. Like many others here, I just call those mysteries and don't give them a name.

Several of us have told you the same thing: We acknowledge that there is mystery, but we are not consumed by it, nor do we want to call it God. And I suspect that you would find greater peace if you didn't, either. You seem frustrated and annoyed by the thinking of others, whereas they seem to be unemotional about your beliefs.

"Elf" is a term from a specific category of literature used to refer to a specific imaginary class of beings. "God" is a term used in a very different category of literature used to refer to the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. The 'Being' of all being: 'omni-being'. As you can easily see, they come from VERY different categories of literature, and refer to a VERY different class of imaginary beings. But then I doubt that you were ever really confused about this.

I don't know a name for the fallacy of pointing to irrelevant differences between things being compared to attempt to negate the comparison. The comparison of gods to elves is apt because of what they have in common - each is a creature that some believe or have believed exist with insufficient evidence. Whatever their differences may be is irrelevant to the comparison of their similarities. Perhaps it is a variation of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy turned inside-out. It is defined as, "an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are overemphasized." Here, you're emphasizing irrelevant differences while ignoring the relevant similarities.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have a very simple answer to those questions -- because God does not CHOOSE to be seen by anyone, and God does not CHOOSE to be heard by anyone except His Messengers, and since God is omnipotent God gets to choose how He will communicate to humans. Humans do not get to choose what God will do

Maybe you recall my argument against gods that I called restricted choice. It was of the form, "If there is a God, the world could be this way or that, but absent a god, it must be that." Several examples were provided. In a world with a God, there might or might not be a holy book that only an intelligence that transcends human intelligence could have written, but in a godless universe, there will only be books that could have been written by men. In a world with a God, there might or might not be regular and stable laws of nature, since a god could just will the planets to stay in their orbits, which could be of any shape, and involve objects suddenly speeding up or slowing down for no apparent reason, but in a godless universe where nobody is running things, such laws are necessary for the stability needed for life and mind to form. And on it goes. I won't list the all again, but they are all of this form: if a God existed, A or B might be the case, but if there is no god running the show, only B is possible. And we always find it's B.

Do you recall the analogy of the perfectly loaded coin, one that only comes up tails (choice B)? If the coin were fair, the flip could be heads (A) or tails (B). Ten flips later, all tails. A hundred flips later, all tails (B). A thousand flips later, all tails (B). Technically, there is a finite chance that the coin is fair and that the next flip will be heads (A), but as the tails outcomes pile up, it just becomes untenable to continue to believe that the coin is a fair coin.

This s also how tax cheats are caught: If these are honest errors, they ought to be in the government's favor (A) as often as in the tax preparer's favor (B). When you return has twenty errors and all are in your favor (B), guess who's going to jail.

Now let's frame your comments in the language of restricted choice (incidentally, that's phrase I co-opted from contract bridge, where it means something different). If the there is God, he might choose to be seen (A) or not (B), but if this god doesn't exist, it will be unseen (B). Gods always seem to choose B. They always do what what would happen if there was no god.

Think about Sagan's dragon in the garage again. If he really has one, it might be visible (A) or invisible (B), but if there is no dragon, it will not be visible (B). It's invisible. If he really has an invisible dragon in the garage, it might leave footprints in the flour sprinkled (A) or leave no prints, perhaps because it floats above the floor (B), but if there is no dragon, only B is possible: no prints. And on and on. Always B. There's no dragon. The coin is loaded. The guy's a tax cheat. And as for the god, well, you decide.

One more thing: consilience - "agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities." This refers to, for example, evolutionary theory, where multiple independent kinds of evidence (fossil, genetic, biogeographic, taxonomic, embryologic, etc.) all point to the same conclusion. We see it in forensic science, where multiple types of evidence (fibers, DNA, fingerprints, eyewitness testimony, ballistics, etc.) each point to the same suspect and conclusion. The combination of findings makes them all more likely that each would be considered separately. So too with restricted choice. As the B findings accumulate, so does the degree of consilience as each finding points to the same conclusion.

If it is not convincing to others that are not of my religion that is not because it is not reliable evidence.

Below are seven reasons why more people have not recognized the evidence for Baha’u’llah, yet.

1. Many people have never heard of the Baha’i Faith, so they do not know there is something to look for. It is the responsibility of the Baha’is to get the message out, so if that is not happening, the Baha’is are to blame. However, there are so few Baha’is and they are busy building the New World Order, and there is only so much time, so they can only do so much.

2. But even after people know about the Baha’i Faith, most people are not even willing to look the evidence in order to determine if it is true or not.

3. Even if they are willing to look at the evidence, there is a lot of prejudice before even getting out the door to look at the evidence.

4. 84% of people in the world already have a religion and they are happy with their religion so they have no interest in a “new religion.”

5. The rest of the world’s population is agnostics or atheists or believers who are prejudiced against all religion.

6. Agnostics or atheists and atheists and believers who have no religion either do not believe that God communicates via Messengers or they find fault with the Messenger, Baha’u’llah.

7. Baha’u’llah brought new teachings and laws that are very different from the older religions so many people are suspicious of those teachings and/or don’t like the laws because some laws require them to give things up that they like doing.

You left out the one that applies to me. I find the evidence for belief insufficient. You never consider the possibility that Baha'u'llah was just another man claiming to speak for a god that either doesn't exist or doesn't communicate with people.

So what is reliable evidence (your term)? Is that supporting evidence?

What is poor quality evidence to one person is good evidence to another. Whether it is good or poor is completely subjective. It would be a start if atheists could at least understand this basic concept. They can still say that the evidence does not mean anything to them because they consider it poor.

I'm aware that people evaluate evidence differently, but that doesn't make all such evaluations equally valid or valuable. We've discussed this before. Reason isn't arbitrary. Some people become adept at recognizing what evidence is relevant and what it implies using valid reasoning to arrive at sound conclusions. Others do not, and cannot recognize that their analysis is flawed. Yet the ones that can do this well will identify the flawed thinking. This creates a situation where both sides think they have valid albeit different answers, and only one knows the other doesn't.

I've used the example of an addition problem to represent this. We intend to add a column of multi-digit numbers, which is our starting point. We can call these addends the premises or evidence that our reason will be applied to to reach our conclusion (sum). It is incorrect to say that this is a subjective process, and that there are many possible results that are all equally valid. No. There is only one correct sum. Those who are skilled at addition will arrive at this sum, and by comparing their answers, will know that they are correct and that others who came to the same conclusion (sum) also understand addition and are correct.

Now suppose that there are people that think that it is just as valid to add 2 and 2 and come up with 5 as any other form of "reasoning" applied to the "evidence" (2+2). If they're smart enough, they can be convinced that 2+2 can only equal 4, but some will continue to believe that their reasoning is just as valid as any other, and that the correct sum is just somebody else's opinion. In the meantime, those that can add properly understand that there is correct and incorrect in reasoning, and that reasoning is incorrect.

You're kind of in that predicament now. Your reasoning is flawed, others can see it, you can't, you think that your conclusions are sound and based in valid reasoning while others see that it is not. You want acceptance. You want others to recognize that reasoning is subjective, by which I assume you mean that there are no right or wrong answers, and that your reasoning and answers should be seen in that light.

But they won't and don't, and for good reason. They understand that there are only valid and fallacious arguments, and they recognize a fallacious one. They don't agree with you when you say that you properly use reason applied to evidence to arrive at your beliefs. They see your argument and can find the flaw in it, but are unable to show that to you.

I said: Evidence is evidence and all people assign different meanings to the evidence.

But not all assignations are equally valid. We're often told that the Bible is evidence that God made the world. That's misunderstanding what the Bible is actually evidence of: that somebody wrote it, and nothing more.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then God created Bill Gates in his own image, who also is great at making flawed things that keep needing fixes.

That is true. That is why I abandoned Windows ages ago. I could not follow Windows commandments. My fav is the good old Debian, as well as the recent EndeavorOS.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. one can't simply assume that God did something wrong, ..
I agree, there are a lot of issues here.

Whether the God did anything wright or wrong will come later. My first problem is about acceptance of his existence without any proof.
If there are so many issues even in the beginning, is there any reason to accept the existence of any God or Goddess?

 

[CG Didymus]

Well there is no contingency plan for free will gone bad.

And why should free will go bad at all with a God who can master and correct free will.

TB, so I assume the Baha'i Faith, makes such a big deal about "free will". As if God wants us to come find him and believe in him and love him. Yet, people think they have found him, and then the Baha'is tell them that what they believe about God is wrong.

But, pretending that the Bible is true, God did have contingency plans. First, "I'll put a tree in the middle of the garden. And put a talking snake in there to tempt them to eat the fruit from that tree which I told them not to eat." Gee, good plan God. How did that work for you? So Adam and Eve ate. God's contingency plan? To curse the snake and Adam and Eve and the whole Earth. So that brought sin and death into the world. So things were all screwed up for thousands of years. Next plan... Give them the Law. If they obey, God will be nice to them. If they disobey, God will make their lives a living hell, or he might just smite them right then and there.

Oh, but I forgot another plan of God. The Earth was filled with evil so God thought it would be a good idea to flood the whole planet and kill everything and start over with a few animals and Noah's family. Didn't work. Not long after evil was rampant.

Anyway, God sends his only Son who gives people away to get forgiven for being evil an sinful. And he promises them that he will return and destroy Satan and all the evil people and make the world great again.

So, will there be evil in that new world? Is there evil in heaven where only believers are allowed in? Were those believers ever perfect in their lives on Earth? No, but in heaven they will be perfect and obey God? So what about free will? Do those people in heaven and on the new improved Earth have free will? If they don't then God did make them into robots that can do nothing but love and worship him. Or, he allows them to have free will, but they never, ever choose to do the wrong thing? Or, since there is no evil, the only choices they have is to do good things? And if that is how God is going to make things, why did he put people through this experiment of his to see who will obey and who won't? Especially since he supposedly knew ahead of time. Did he really think that people would choose to obey an invisible being that gives them a bunch of laws to obey, or that they'd choose selfish interests and having fun instead? Come on God, the choice is easy. A whole bunch of people are going to say, "Let's party." Including a lot of the supposed "believers".

 

[CG Didymus]

Prove me wrong in any of the 27,027 posts that I have made in more than fourteen and a half years I have been on the forum.

I agree with you.

 

[PureX]

I think you misunderstood what was meant by, "the logical default for any given claim is that X is false." It's analogous to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

It doesn't matter how you try to couch it or analogize it, it's both wrong, and illogical. If person A proposes as true that "God exists, and in turn effects our existence", but then cannot offer any proof of it (this is already a very subjective and inherently biased requirement) then the logical result is not to assume that the proposal is false, but that it is unproven. For the very simple and obvious reason that it has not been proven a to be false, and could in fact be true even though it couldn't be proven to be true.

Since I do not believe anyone here to be especially stupid, or incapable of understanding this obvious and simple course of logic, I can only assume that those who are trying to reject it are just being willfully and irrationally contrary.

If the existence of God were clear, like the existence of the sun is, we wouldn't need to have this discussion, would we? Because the sun's existence is clear, you don't hear a lot of debate asking for evidence for this sun. Because the existence of gods is far from clear, the world has thousands of them that somebody does or once did argue really exists, including you and your god.

The 'sun' is a physical phenomenon. 'God' is an ideological phenomenon. There is no logical reason to presume that the characteristics of the one should be required as evidence for the other. And in fact, it is this illogical denial of a metaphysical realm that doomed philosophical materialism when it was first proposed, centuries ago. Unfortunately, there are many among us that didn't get the memo, and so are still trying to maintain this failed philosophy.

The only possible way of obtaining physical proof for a proposed ideological paradigm (like those based on the existence and effectiveness of 'God') is to practice the paradigm while interacting with the physical world to see if it functions. But even if it does, this doesn't really prove the paradigm is true, it only proves that it's functional in relation to the physical world, and from our limited perspective. This is evidence that might convince someone, of course, but it's still not proof.

 

[CG Didymus]

Can you think of a better design? Should God have created humans as programmable robots?

Now let's see? When we make robots, would we want them to have "free will"? Like a car? Or a vacuum? You get into the car and give it a command, "Take me to the store." And it drives off a cliff. Or, with the vacuum, "Clean the living room." When you get home you ask the vacuum, "Where's the cat?"

We design lots of safe-guards. With God, it almost seems like life is random. How many people go walking in the woods in a year? Probably millions. But one of them might get bit by a rattlesnake. Another killed by a mountain lion. Another mauled by a bear. And some, even killed by another human. Who makes that choice? On who will live and who will die?

Some people get rich. Some people get exploited to make others rich. Some kids grow strong. Some are weak and sickly. Even some of the strong ones have an accident and get crippled or die. Some of the weak ones find ways to overcome. Lots of choices in life. Do most know enough to make the right choice?

Even some religious families teaches their kid the ways of God... the supposed "right" choice. But are they? They teach the kid that God is a three-part thing and that there is an evil spirit being and that a good believer should go and tell the poor lost souls about this God and his plan for salvation. The kid makes the "right" choice and goes off to some tribe in the jungle and tells them that what they believe is false and they must turn from their evils ways and believe in this three-part God. The kid gets eaten.

Was the beliefs the kid had about God correct? Was what the jungle tribe believed correct? Probably both are wrong. And, if the Baha'i Faith is right, then a very, very small percentage of people in the world know the real truth and know what the right choices should be. And still, do they make the right choice all of the time? Most of the time? Some of the time? Or, hardly ever?

One thing for sure I'm glad nobody put God in charge of making robots.