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

[Trailblazer]

Are you saying that's the only way to get it?

Yes, that would be the only way to get it, other than reading it in books. Can you think of another way?

But anyone can write anything, can't they?

So simply READING that evidence exists means absolutely nothing if we can't examine that evidence for ourselves.

But you cannot examine Baha'u'llah for yourself and interview Him because He has taken His flight up to heaven!

So the only option you have is to try to verify that what is written in the books is actually true.

If a source can be the claim as well as the evidence, then there is evidence to support the claim I can turn into a fire breathing dragon, as I explained in post 5547.

Do you have any witnesses? Jesus had lots of witnesses.

Hence I have concluded that Jesus as described in the Bible did not actually exist.

You are free to conclude that and I have to agree that the Jesus described in the Bible is largely fictitious, especially the parts about how He rose from the dead..

 

[Trailblazer]

Who better than me to provide the evidence that I can turn into a dragon?

Or do you say that just because something is written is not enough for it to be actual evidence?

I am saying that.

I do have witnesses. According to the writing I presented in post 5547, there HAVE been witnesses to my transformation. I even posed for a photo with @Mark Charles Compton while in my dragon form, something which I'm sure he will be happy to confirm.

I want EVIDENCE, and there is no evidence that can't be explained with a non-God explanation.

No evidence that means that to you.

Your testing is insufficient to verify it.

We don't always get what we want so I guess it is time to fold up shop and go home.

Absolute garbage. Let's say there is a novelist who has had many best sellers. Those bestsellers are NOT the claim that the author is a good author!

That was just analogy.

Mr B's writings are the claim, and they can not be presented in any way as evidence to support the claim.

As I have already told you numerous times, there are claims in the Writings becaue otherwise we would have no way to know what Baha'u'llah claimed, but most of the Writings are not claims. The Writings are part of the evidence that supports the claims of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

But it's no guarantee that I WILL make the correct determination.

You want a guarantee, but there is no guarantee, except on products you purchase at stores.
But I guarantee if you choose the Baha'i Faith you will be making the correct determination.

Would you care to explain for everyone how a person can be aware of their subconscious biases?

I did not say you can be aware of your subconscious biases, I was referring to your conscious biases.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not the only person who has called you out on this.

What would that matter? Sounds like ad populum to me.

And you have many times asserted that something is the case. You have asserted that Mr B WAS a messenger of God, you have asserted that you HAVE proven your beliefs...

You thought I was asserting it but I was just saying that I believe it.

So what? Just because you are rigorous in one area doesn't mean you are rigorous in all areas.

It does not necessarily mean that but it is a good indication.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

then other theists suggest we shouldn't be here at all, as you have done here.

That's awfully dramatic, and a misrepresentation of what I have said. "Why would you be here unless you had something to say on the matter of religion.?"

It consumes a portion of your life, it is in fact a practice that you participate in that is very much similar to how I practice my own religion.

"Signs signs, everywhere are signs! Mocking at the scenery, breaking my mind! Do this! Don't do that! Can't you read the signs!"

It's my opinion, you're welcome every and anywhere, my friend. Just recognize, we all have both our own reasoning as well as a reason we arrived there.

 

[ppp]

Why would I be rigorous in my work and not rigorous in scrutinizing my religious beliefs?

I don't know why you do it.

Who has been going on about how I am making claims? Not me.

In a pig's eye.

 

[ppp]

It consumes a portion of your life, it is in fact a practice that you participate in that is very much similar to how I practice my own religion.

That's your criteria for concluding that to these two things are alike? It consumes a portion of your life? That is pretty weak tea.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, that would be the only way to get it, other than reading it in books. Can you think of another way?

So then there is no evidence, all we have is someone's claims that the evidence is real.

Can you imagine if court was like that?

"Yes, your honour. There is evidence that proves my client is innocent without a doubt. No, I can't produce the evidence for the court. No, I haven't seen the evidence myself. But I do have a written statement from a guy who saw it, and I know it's true because I really trust the guy who wrote it."

But you cannot examine Baha'u'llah for yourself and interview Him because He has taken His flight up to heaven!

How convenient! The one person who can verify it all is no longer available!

So the only option you have is to try to verify that what is written in the books is actually true.

But we can't actually do that, by your own admission (see the first bit I responded to in this post).

Do you have any witnesses? Jesus had lots of witnesses.

Yes. I have witnesses. The account a shared in post 5547 clearly states there were many witnesses.

 

[Tiberius]

I am saying that.

So a written account of someone doing amazing things is not enough to be evidence!

So the written account of Mr B's actions and whatnot isn't enough to be evidence to support his claims, it seems that you have nothing else to go on.

Why do you respond like that? I provided the claim, I provided the evidence, I've pointed out that there are witnesses...

No evidence that means that to you.

No evidence that doesn't reduce to a logical fallacy, you mean.

We don't always get what we want so I guess it is time to fold up shop and go home.

Seems to me that religion is designed to never be able to provide it.

That was just analogy.

Not a very good one, it seems.

As I have already told you numerous times, there are claims in the Writings becaue otherwise we would have no way to know what Baha'u'llah claimed, but most of the Writings are not claims. The Writings are part of the evidence that supports the claims of Baha'u'llah.

Hold on! You just said that writings are not sufficient to be evidence.

Tibs: ...do you say that just because something is written is not enough for it to be actual evidence?

TB: I am saying that.

Just because something is written is not enough for it to be actual evidence. You agreed with this statement. You can't try to weasel out of it now.

 

[Tiberius]

But I guarantee if you choose the Baha'i Faith you will be making the correct determination.

I guarantee that if you choose atheism you will be making the correct determination.

See how easy it is to say that? See how utterly unconvincing it is?

I did not say you can be aware of your subconscious biases, I was referring to your conscious biases.

Why would I allow a CONSCIOUS bias to influence me?

I was specifically speaking of SUBconscious biases in post 5609. Once again you reduce yourself to dishonest strawmen against me.

 

[Tiberius]

What would that matter? Sounds like ad populum to me.

So whenever you have several people telling you things you disagree with, you dismiss it as argumentum ad populum?

How arrogant to assume that they couldn't possibly be onto something. How arrogant to assume that you MUST know better than them.

You thought I was asserting it but I was just saying that I believe it.

Saying you believe something: "I believe Mr B was a messenger from God."

Asserting something as truth: "I know Mr B was a messenger from God."

Guess which one you've been doing.

So, once again, stop hiding behind that weak argument.

It does not necessarily mean that but it is a good indication.

No it isn't.

Good performance in one area does not serve as any indication of good performance in another area, particularly if the second area is very different to the first area.

 

[Trailblazer]

So then there is no evidence, all we have is someone's claims that the evidence is real.

No, the evidence is not the claim. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Can you imagine if court was like that?

"Yes, your honour. There is evidence that proves my client is innocent without a doubt. No, I can't produce the evidence for the court. No, I haven't seen the evidence myself. But I do have a written statement from a guy who saw it, and I know it's true because I really trust the guy who wrote it."

That is how courts operate. You do not see the actual evidence that was at the murder scene, only the detectives see that. After that the evidence is brought before the court and presented as written statements and oral testimonies.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them

How convenient! The one person who can verify it all is no longer available!

If you used your noggin you would realize that even if Baha'u'llah was here you STILL would not be able to verify that He got messages from God... All you would have is His word on it, but we HAVE His word, as it was recorded in His Writings, so what's the difference?

But we can't actually do that, by your own admission (see the first bit I responded to in this post).

All you can do is verify it to the best of your ability.

verify: make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=verify+means

Yes. I have witnesses. The account a shared in post 5547 clearly states there were many witnesses.

 

[Trailblazer]

So a written account of someone doing amazing things is not enough to be evidence!

So the written account of Mr B's actions and whatnot isn't enough to be evidence to support his claims, it seems that you have nothing else to go on.

Just because something is written is not enough for it to be actual evidence. It depends upon who wrote it and if it has been corroborated by others. Just because you made something up about being a fire-breathing dragon and wrote it down that does not constitute evidence.

Why do you respond like that? I provided the claim, I provided the evidence, I've pointed out that there are witnesses...

See above.

No evidence that doesn't reduce to a logical fallacy, you mean.

No, that is not what I mean.

Seems to me that religion is designed to never be able to provide it.

No, religion is not designed to provide what you require, absolute proof that a Messenger got a message from God.

Hold on! You just said that writings are not sufficient to be evidence.

Tibs: ...do you say that just because something is written is not enough for it to be actual evidence?

TB: I am saying that.

Just because something is written is not enough for it to be actual evidence. You agreed with this statement. You can't try to weasel out of it now.

Just because something is written is not enough for it to be actual evidence. It depends upon who wrote it and if it has been corroborated by others. Just because you made something up about being a fire-breathing dragon and wrote it down that does not constitute evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

I guarantee that if you choose atheism you will be making the correct determination.

See how easy it is to say that? See how utterly unconvincing it is?

It was not meant to be convincing. It was a joke.

I 'believe' that if you choose the Baha'i Faith you will be making the correct determination, but that is because I 'believe' that the Baha'i Faith is true.

Why would I allow a CONSCIOUS bias to influence me?

I was specifically speaking of SUBconscious biases in post 5609. Once again you reduce yourself to dishonest strawmen against me.

I don't care what you were speaking of, I speak for myself, and I am not arguing against you.

Why wouldn't a conscious bias influence you? Just because one is AWARE of a bias that does not mean they are not influenced by it.

I am aware of biases I have and since I am aware of them I can try to compensate for them by not allowing them to affect my logical thinking processes, since I am aware they are wrong. For example, I am aware of a bias I have towards Christianity for certain reasons but I try not to let my bias affect my thinking because I know that Christianity is more than what my bias would indicate.

The only thing you can do about subconscious biases is try to bring them into conscious awareness so you can try to compensate for them, as I explained above.

 

[Tiberius]

No, the evidence is not the claim. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Do try to follow the conversation.

I am talking about the claim that the evidence exists, not the claim the evidence is supposed to support.

Claim: I can turn into a dragon.

Evidence: *Some piece of writing that says I can turn into a dragon.*

Claim that the evidence exists: I know you haven't seen the evidence that Tibs can turn into a dragon, but there's one guy who saw the evidence, and he says the evidence is real."

That is how courts operate. You do not see the actual evidence that was at the murder scene, only the detectives see that. After that the evidence is brought before the court and presented as written statements and oral testimonies.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them

That's hilariously wrong.

"An example of a material object in a murder case is the murder weapon. This is a piece of real evidence, which can be introduced in court." SOURCE

If you used your noggin you would realize that even if Baha'u'llah was here you STILL would not be able to verify that He got messages from God... All you would have is His word on it, but we HAVE His word, as it was recorded in His Writings, so what's the difference?

You can pick up things speaking face to face with someone that are impossible to pick up on through writing.

All you can do is verify it to the best of your ability.

Except by your own admission we can't do that. Not unless we have very low standards.

verify

: make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=verify+means

Oh, how passive aggressive of you, providing a definition for a word that I know, that you know that I know, and that everyone else here knows.

 

[Tiberius]

Just because something is written is not enough for it to be actual evidence. It depends upon who wrote it and if it has been corroborated by others. Just because you made something up about being a fire-breathing dragon and wrote it down that does not constitute evidence.

I've provided the claim, I've provided written evidence which CLEARLY shows that there have been witnesses to my transformation, and I've had other people post that they are convinced by my argument. I've even posed for photos with people while in dragon form! What more do you need?

See above.

Ditto.

No, that is not what I mean.

Yet that's all you've been able to provide.

No, religion is not designed to provide what you require, absolute proof that a Messenger got a message from God.

So religion was designed to not be able to provide a good argument for itself? It was DESIGNED to be unconvincing except to those who would fall prey to logical fallacies?

Just because something is written is not enough for it to be actual evidence. It depends upon who wrote it and if it has been corroborated by others. Just because you made something up about being a fire-breathing dragon and wrote it down that does not constitute evidence.

I'm getting Deja vu all over again...

 

[Trailblazer]

So whenever you have several people telling you things you disagree with, you dismiss it as argumentum ad populum?

No, I only bring up ad populum when you say that many people agree with you, as if what many people agree with means it is true.

How arrogant to assume that they couldn't possibly be onto something. How arrogant to assume that you MUST know better than them.

How arrogant to assume that they KNOW they are onto something, especially when it is something about me that they cannot possibly know.

Saying you believe something: "I believe Mr B was a messenger from God."

Asserting something as truth: "I know Mr B was a messenger from God."

Guess which one you've been doing.

So, once again, stop hiding behind that weak argument.

It does not matter if I say I believe or I know, I am not asserting it as the truth. It is what I believe and what I know is true and it is personal to me.

No it isn't.

Good performance in one area does not serve as any indication of good performance in another area, particularly if the second area is very different to the first area.

The second area is not very different from the first area.

 

[Tiberius]

It was not meant to be convincing. It was a joke.

I 'believe' that if you choose the Baha'i Faith you will be making the correct determination, but that is because I 'believe' that the Baha'i Faith is true.

People of all faiths say that.

I don't care what you were speaking of, I speak for myself, and I am not arguing against you.

You don't care? So you literally do not care what I write, you're just gonna say whatever you want? That's both arrogant and rude of you.

Why wouldn't a conscious bias influence you? Just because one is AWARE of a bias that does not mean they are not influenced by it.

I was not talking about conscious biases.

The only thing you can do about subconscious biases is try to bring them into conscious awareness so you can try to compensate for them, as I explained above.

Here's a crazy idea...

Maybe you can get someone else to look at what you've done, and see if they can spot any places where a subconscious bias has potentially influenced you. After all, it's unlikely they will be affected by the same subconscious biases that you've got, so they'll be better able to see the effect of such biases than you.

Think that might work?

 

[Trailblazer]

That's hilariously wrong.

"An example of a material object in a murder case is the murder weapon. This is a piece of real evidence, which can be introduced in court." SOURCE

An example of a material object that makes a case for Baha'u'llah:
Exhibition of Baha’u’llah’s writings opens at British Museum | BWNS

You can pick up things speaking face to face with someone that are impossible to pick up on through writing.

How is that relevant?
if Baha'u'llah was here you STILL would not be able to verify that He got messages from God... All you would have is His word on it. How would you know? Even close members of His family did not believe He was a Messenger of God.

Of course none of this is relevant anyway because Baha'u'llah is not here, He is in heaven with God and Jesus and all the other Messengers in the Supreme Concourse.

 

[Trailblazer]

So religion was designed to not be able to provide a good argument for itself? It was DESIGNED to be unconvincing except to those who would fall prey to logical fallacies?

No, religion is designed to be unconvincing, except to those who have spiritual eyes and ears and can think logically.