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

[RestlessSoul]

God could communicate with each of us directly but we could not understand God because humans were not created with the capacity to understand God speaking to us directly.

This is a significant observation, which doubters and sceptics often fail to grasp when demanding that God conform to human demands and expectations. Whatever the true nature of God may be, even the most enlightened individuals have only ever caught a glimpse of His divine light. To ask why an omnipotent God doesn't do this or that, is simply to expose the limited perceptions of the questioner. We each see only a little. Only God sees all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is a significant observation, which doubters and sceptics often fail to grasp when demanding that God conform to human demands and expectations. Whatever the true nature of God may be, even the most enlightened individuals have only ever caught a glimpse of His divine light. To ask why an omnipotent God doesn't do this or that, is simply to expose the limited perceptions of the questioner. We each see only a little. Only God sees all.

I get what you are saying, yet I am still an atheist in practice. As long as we can somewhat agree on the everyday world then it will hopefully be enough.

 

[RestlessSoul]

By definition; to communicate requires both parties to be able to understand each other. if we do not understand God, then he is not communicating with us.

I don't understand Russian or Japanese, though I'd like to; is that because Tolstoy and Ryokan aren't communicating with me?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I get what you are saying, yet I am still an atheist in practice. As long as we can somewhat agree on the everyday world then it will hopefully be enough.

I think you and I can both agree that we each know only a little; that life is a complex web of mystery, which we all negotiate imperfectly. Nothing is certain, nothing is fixed, no knowledge is absolute.

 

[Kfox]

I don't understand Russian or Japanese, though I'd like to; is that because Tolstoy and Ryokan aren't communicating with me?

I have no clue who those people are, but if they are attempting to communicate with you using a method you don't understand or recognize, there is no communicating going on.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no clue who those people are, but if they are attempting to communicate with you using a method you don't understand or recognize, there is no communicating going on.

Unless you believe in a non-revealed deity, for which all communication is indirect. I tried to believe in such a God, but I had no need for it as I coped okay as an atheist.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have no clue who those people are, but if they are attempting to communicate with you using a method you don't understand or recognize, there is no communicating going on.

The reason for the lack of communication, is my inability to comprehend their respective languages. It’s on me, not them.

 

[Sheldon]

Even if God could speak English you could never understand God.

That's a non sensical claim, it is also of course another of the arbitrary unevidenced assertions you seem to reel off relentlessly. I know better than to even ask for any objective evidence by now.

 

[Sheldon]

No, that is not how logic works.

It's like this: If you cannot prove that God does not exist in reality then God could exist in reality, which means that God does not only exist inside my mind.

That's nonsense, if you're going to invoke logic then using a known logical fallacy like argumentum ad ignorantiam is not the way to do it. Surely this fallacy has been explained enough times by now, for even you to desist from making rhetorical assertions you're being logical, while simultaneously making an irrational argument of this nature?


Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

"Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proved true."

Note emboldened part, and now from your post:

If you cannot prove that God does not exist in reality then God could exist in reality,

It is a text book example of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, yet again.

 

[Sheldon]

This is a significant observation, which doubters and sceptics often fail to grasp when demanding that God conform to human demands and expectations. Whatever the true nature of God may be, even the most enlightened individuals have only ever caught a glimpse of His divine light. To ask why an omnipotent God doesn't do this or that, is simply to expose the limited perceptions of the questioner. We each see only a little. Only God sees all.

Then that would not be an omniscient omnipotent deity.

Omnipotent and omniscient lite...

I don't trouble myself much with hypotheticals about deities that various different theists believe is real. Anymore than I waste much time wondering if mermaids have gills or lungs. However it is rationally inconsistent to claim a deity has limitless knowledge and power, then start listing things it can't do, especially things evolved apes have mastered.

 

[Kfox]

If we could all hear from God directly, then why would we need these messengers and their religions.

Excellent point! Why on Earth would God need messengers, knowing they are gonna mess it all up giving mixed messages and all; when all he has to do is communicate to us directly! Now if we could just get someone else to see this type of logic.

 

[Kfox]

The reason for the lack of communication, is my inability to comprehend their respective languages. It’s on me, not them.

No; if they have the ability to speak to you in a language they know you understand, it is their fault if they choose not to.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Excellent point! Why on Earth would God need messengers, knowing they are gonna mess it all up giving mixed messages and all; when all he has to do is communicate to us directly!.

G-d doesn't need anything.
He chooses to send us messengers from ourselves.
He chooses to do what He wills.

We choose what we want to do. It seems the more money and power we have, the more we claim that there is no need for "a god".

Oh well.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is a significant observation, which doubters and sceptics often fail to grasp when demanding that God conform to human demands and expectations. Whatever the true nature of God may be, even the most enlightened individuals have only ever caught a glimpse of His divine light. To ask why an omnipotent God doesn't do this or that, is simply to expose the limited perceptions of the questioner. We each see only a little. Only God sees all.

A little would be a lot. But each religion and each sect within religions give people a different truth to believe in. Catholics vs. Protestants. JW's vs. Mormons. Presbyterians vs. 7th Day Adventists. Then add to that Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Baha'is and all the other religions. People are being taught different "truths". And I'll bet that in most of those that there are people who have "felt" God or the divine. Or have had some kind of vision or something supernatural has happened to them. Is that God communicating to them?

Like with Pentecostals... They speak in tongues and get "words" of knowledge and prophetic messages from God. And these messages always align with their beliefs. But is it from God, or is it all in their heads?

 

[CG Didymus]

I have no clue who those people are, but if they are attempting to communicate with you using a method you don't understand or recognize, there is no communicating going on.

But those works can be translated. So, is God speaking to us, but in some strange language? And all we hear is gibberish? I think that is what some religious people think. That once a person believes, they can understand the voice of God. Which is usually based on whatever their Scriptures are and their interpretation of those Scriptures. At least that is what I get from some Christians that say we hear the voice of God through the Bible.

 

[CG Didymus]

Excellent point! Why on Earth would God need messengers, knowing they are gonna mess it all up giving mixed messages and all; when all he has to do is communicate to us directly! Now if we could just get someone else to see this type of logic.

There's no money in that. Much better to have only a few messengers, and a few "Holy" ones that know the correct meaning of that message, which can then sell, I'm mean, give it to others.

 

[CG Didymus]

G-d doesn't need anything.
He chooses to send us messengers from ourselves.
He chooses to do what He wills.

We choose what we want to do. It seems the more money and power we have, the more we claim that there is no need for "a god".

Oh well.

If there is a spirit-being that created us and loves us, then of course we need that being. But, in so many ways, it seems like people have made up their own spirit-beings that fit into their beliefs and culture almost perfectly.

The problem now is how do we get the concepts of God and Gods from other cultures to fit into ours? Did the God of the Jews fit easily into other cultures? It did after Christianity made a few adjustments. Did the God of the Jews, which is more like the God of the Christians fit easily into the culture and beliefs of the people of Arabia? It did after Muhammad made a few tweaks to it. And now the Baha'is... They've made a few changes to make it more compatible with the people in today's world. But is it really God or just people doing the tweaking?

 

[Trailblazer]

You miss the point. You accuse others of being mired in their beliefs but fail to see the possibility that the same can be said of you.

That is what you think was the point, not what Tiberius said was his point.
You can think or say whatever you want to. We all have personal opinions.

And there we have it. Tb admits that God is unable to do certain things, but nevertheless, she will continue to call him omniscient and omnipotent. There's logic for you!!

I never said God was unable to do certain things, I said that humans are unable to do certain things.
There's logic for you!!

Irony overload.

Straw man. I do not project my own ideas of what it means for God to be omniscient and omnipotent and then you lay my expectations on God. I believe what Baha’u’llah wrote about God regarding what it means to be omnipotent and omniscient and as such I have no expectations of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no evidence that's why its called faith.

I think there is evidence but evidence is not the same as proof.

The reason God does not prove He exists is because God wants our faith. If God proved He exists then we would no longer need faith.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

We must first believe that it is possible for God to exist, and that requires faith since no man has ever seen God.

I believe that God will reward those who earnestly seek Him with the evidence they need to believe, but God will not force anyone to accept the evidence. We all have free will so that is a choice.

 

[Kfox]

He chooses to send us messengers from ourselves.

Most of his messengers are rejected; they have no credibility because too many crooked people claim to speak for God when they are just looking for power