-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Because I've never seen evidence that convinces me it's true.Why do you not believe it?
So back to my question ... where is the evidence for angels and Gods communicating with people?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
History .. the Bible .. the Qur'an.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Those are the claims, not the evidence. Also, those books don't make the same claims.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
It's evidence for the person who believes, and "a claim" for those that don't.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Evidence for someone who already believes?
That's not evidence then.
Evidence should be good enough for everyone, not just people who already believe a thing.
The Bible states that a bunch of stuff happened. Evidence would requiring demonstrating that those claims are actually true, rather than just asserting that they're true, as the Bible does.
Going by the logic you've used here, all the claims made in the Harry Potter books are true too, because, well, they are written down in the books. See how this doesn't work?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I think he meant it was evidence for believers, and that is why they came to believe.
Evidence will never be good enough for everyone because all humans are unique so they assess evidence differently.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Don't you think it's funny that we don't say stuff like this for other stuff in life?
Like, I don't say "I have evidence for the existence of turtles, but it only constitutes as evidence if you already believe in turtles."
No, I just show you a turtle.
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It is not really funny, it is just realistic....
Nobody can 'show you God.' You either believe that God exists based upon the evidence that God provided or you do not.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, you believe in God. Knock yourself out. Have a party. No one is denying that you have a belief. The problem is that when you say there is "evidence" then you have to be able to do two things. Show what the evidence is and be ready to explain why it is evidence. For terms like "evidence" one cannot have one's own personal version of the word. Words do not work that way. If you say I have evidence that this is red:
And others point out that it is blue you do not get to say "in your opinion".
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I guess what I'm saying is it's not realistic, given the way we normally assess the existence of anything else in the world.
It's more of a cop-out, if you ask me.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Okay, you disbelieve in God. Knock yourself out. Have a party.
No one is denying that you have a disbelief.
I have done that 100 times over so I see no reason to repeat myself again just to hear the same old mantra "that's not evidence."
I do not have my own definition. I posted the definitions.
We are not talking about colors, we are talking about evidence for a religion, so that is a red herring.
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.
Red herring - Wikipedia
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It is not a cop-out, it is reality.....
God is not like anything else so we cannot assess the existence of God the same way we assess the existence of other things. We have to use another method.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It would be more accurate to say that I lack a belief in God. When one has a belief either way one is often committed to that belief and irrational defense of that belief often is the result.
But it seems that my point sailed far over your head. No one is denying that you believe in a God. The problem is when you make false claims of evidence for that God.
Though not red my tiles were not a red herring at all. They were an illustration of your claim to have evidence. They were an analogy. You are trying to use improper definitions of "evidence" for this argument. You are making up your own definitions of evidence just as I invented my own definition of "red".
As long as you keep saying that these:
are red tiles people will be correcting you. You do not get to make up your own definitions.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Blue tiles people will be correcting you, if they choose to argue, but I don't choose to argue.
I only want discussions, not arguments.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
In this discussion you have been shown to be wrong.
lukethethird
unknown member
All humans have a brain, not everyone knows how to use it.
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
Okay, you believe in God. Knock yourself out. Have a party. No one is denying that you have a belief. The problem is that when you say there is "evidence" then you have to be able to do two things. Show what the evidence is and be ready to explain why it is evidence. For terms like "evidence" one cannot have one's own personal version of the word. Words do not work that way. If you say I have evidence that this is red:
And others point out that it is blue you do not get to say "in your opinion".
You see blue? I see purple.
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
You think it's 'funny'? It's true. You get the point?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not really. What you see is immaterial here. It matters what one can support with evidence. There are various tools that one could use to measure the light emitted by a monitor and see what color is being sent. "Blue" does have a definition when it comes to light frequencies. The "blue" claim could be very well supported. That was why I chose a color. There are standards for evidence too. "It convinces me" is not the standard. Would it convince others is a much better standard. Would it convince someone that was reasoning rationally is an even higher standard.