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

[ratiocinator]

I think you will have to explain what you mean by philosophical and methodological to this gentleman PureX.

Another baseless assertion from somebody else who doesn't understand the burden of proof. You gotta laugh.

 

[firedragon]

Another baseless assertion from somebody else who doesn't understand the burden of proof. You gotta laugh.

See, "You gotta laugh" is not a logical argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

Consider swapping out "god" for something like, let's say.... atoms.

Is a physicist (the "messenger") claiming atoms exist "evidence" that they exist?
It's no, off course. That's just a claim.

What WOULD be evidence of atoms?
Well, actual evidence of atoms. The kind of evidence that doesn't just rely on someone's word. The kind of evidence that can be independently verified in objective manner.

Here's the thing though...................
BEFORE you can even get to evidence, you actually need a statement / idea / claim for which evidence actually can exist... ie, it has to make testable predictions. It needs to be falsifiable. It needs to be verifiable.

God claims, are never like that. Gods are unfalsifiable ideas which can't have any evidence by definition of being unfalsifiable, untestable, unverifiable.

So if you ask me "what would be evidence of god", then I can't answer that unless you first come up with an actual falsifiable definition of this god in such a way that it CAN have evidence.

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

That's all very nice.
But I'm not seeing you share this evidence. All you are doing is claiming that there is evidence.

I could claim that there is evidence of undetectable graviton pixies till I'm blue in the face, and all you would be left with is exactly that: me just claiming there is evidence, without actually sharing it.


Want to share it?
Great.

First define god in a falsifiable way, then share your evidence and explain how it supports the idea.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because the atheists are the ones who say "that's not evidence." (see the OP)

Because it isn't. Those are claims in need of evidence.
You don't provide evidence for claims, by piling on even more claims.

Why should God do everything that He can do? Why would God do what God does not want to do just because atheists want Him to do it? No atheist has ever been able to answer those questions.

Those are questions for theists. You know... people who actually believe this god exists.

 

[KWED]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

Well, it clearly isn't evidence for god.
There are messengers of many different gods. If the existence of these messengers is evidence for that god, therefore there is evidence for conflicting and mutually exclusive gods.
I'm sure you can see the problem there.

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

Something that unequivocally showed that a specific god exists, and that can't be better explained by some natural explanation.

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

By looking for it. We've been doing that for thousands of years with no luck.

As I see it there are only three possibilities:
1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

This is typical of the question begging of religionists.
The actual position is
4. God may or may not exist but there is no reason to assume it does. We need to examine all the claims and see if there is anything to support them. If not, it is unreasonable to insist that a god does exist. This should be the default position until evidence supporting its existence comes to light.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him.

This is just circular logic. Basically you are saying
"God must exist because if he didn't, my belief would be false".
There is no evidence that god holds humans accountable for anything.

Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

Indeed. However the usual response from apologists is that evidence would make faith meaningless. God requires us to believe without evidence, which as you correctly point out is both unfair and unreasonable.

 

[KWED]

So you think that miracles would be the only evidence for God's existence, or should I say the only way that God could prove that He exists would be by doing a miracle, something supernatural?

I believe that God intervenes in the world by sending Messengers who are human and divine. I believe that they can do miracles but they do not want miracles to be the proof that they are Messengers. Even if a Messenger did miracles that would only be proof to the person or people who witnessed the miracle, so it can never be proof for everyone.

Do you think that all messengers of all gods are evidence? Or just the messengers of the religion you happen to follow?

 

[HonestJoe]

I fully agree. However, that does not mean that there are no men who speak for God, and that was the point I was making.

The very first line of your OP started; "Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence...". If you agree they're not evidence for the existence of God, why would you have been saying that it was in the first place?

I can post what I believe God is, but I have no hypothesis about God since I am not trying to say that I believe God exists because of x, y, or z.

You said back in post #287; "I have a belief which is based upon the evidence.". That is literally saying I believe God exists because of x, y or z.

I respectfully suggest you have faith (which is fine in itself IMO) but no evidence by any conventional definition. Believing things on faith alone is generally looked down upon so you feel pushed in to claiming you have evidence and then getting in to this mess trying to present evidence that doesn't really exist, leading to frustration on all sides. I suggest it'd be better to accept that all you have is faith and deal with that fact as best you can.

God in the Baháʼí Faith

That definition is a little fuzzy and non-specific to work as anything formal or scientific. I would suggest that the "unknowable and inaccessible" pretty much explicitly excludes the possibility of their being evidence for this Gods existence (a monotheistic trope I'd already mentioned), with the "indirect reflection" not really helping (it's either knowable or not, regardless of whether that is directly or indirectly).

Slightly on a tangent, but I've always thought there is a fundamental logical conflict when a God is defined as omniscient and omnipresent but also as having very human emotions and characteristics (like reason and love mentioned here). I'd suggest that any kind of emotion like this requires an imperfection and incomplete knowledge or understanding.

Ultimately, I think true omniscience would render any such being entirely beyond our ability to study or understand in any way. It'd be like trying to look at the back of your own eyes! That would mean there is no evidence that could be presented to support (or indeed deny) this Gods existence, hence why the only real basis for believing it does can be faith.

 

[KWED]

Because the atheists are the ones who say "that's not evidence." (see the OP)

If a defendant in a murder trial claims that he can't be the killer because he was elsewhere, is that "evidence"?
If he holds up a signed statement saying "I did not do it", is that evidence?
If his mum says "He would never do such a thing", is that "evidence"?

God certainly would be capable of doing that and it even says that God could make everyone a believer in the Baha'i scriptures. It also says why God does not present evidence that will convince everyone.

You just claimed that such behaviour is "unfair and unreasonable".

Why should God do everything that He can do? Why would God do what God does not want to do just because atheists want Him to do it? No atheist has ever been able to answer those questions.

If god loves us and wants to save us, then he is obliged to do everything in his power to keep us from hell.

If a parent watched their toddler drinking poison from a bottle they found in a cupboard, but did nothing to stop them - what would you think of that parent?

 

[KWED]

How can Atheists want God to do anything since atheists do not believe in God in the first place?
It is kind of up to the believers in God to give a good enough answer for why God exists, that the atheists may investigate further, but if the atheists do not have the slightest belief in God, why would they spend time looking for it?

*sigh*
If god exists (as you claim he does) why does he not provide some evidence for his existence, given that he claims to love us and wants to save us?
Why is the "evidence" only apparent to people who already believe in him? That is kinda pointless.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Practically every minute of every hour of every day, but like @firedragon I think that atheists are illogical and I cannot work with illogic, it drives me nuts.

That is a clear winner - you can't work with illogic. I will search for logic in your posts. Hope I succeed.

 

[KWED]

The evidence is readily available at all times but since humans have mucked up the evidence tat was provided in the past, some of the evidence does not agree with other evidence.

What was this "evidence"?

 

[Spirit of Light]

*sigh*
If god exists (as you claim he does) why does he not provide some evidence for his existence, given that he claims to love us and wants to save us?
Why is the "evidence" only apparent to people who already believe in him? That is kinda pointless.

Because we have worked our butts off to understand how we can understand God and the message of how we should be as humans, it takes years of dedicated practice. And I do not know any atheists who do that.
Still, I have nothing against any person who is an Atheist. I have no reason to complain about people being non-believers because that is not up to me to tell them what is right for them.

 

[KWED]

I don't think you can ask for a new car

Why not?
Remember that Aisha remarked to Muhammad that "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."

 

[F1fan]

I refer to God as if real because I know God exists but how I know is nothing you could ever understand.

Just yesterday your claim was "I believe God exists and it can't be proven". So you are changing your mind all of a sudden?

I cannot prove what I know to other people nor is that my responsibility.

Again this suggests your standards are lower than the average critical thinker. What convinced you isn't good enough for anyone else.

I meant that I cannot prove that God exists to you or other people. I have proven God exists to myself.

You should consider you might be mistaken in your decision that a God exists.

I can assert anything I want to. This is a public forum. If you don’t like what I assert you can ignore me.

And you do post whatever you like. So you should expect critique to dubious claims and beliefs.

You could know that God exists if you looked at the evidence and realized that it is evidence for God’s existence, but obviously that ain’t happening, so you will never know.

I don't believe you. Your evidence is very weak and subjective. You offer no step by step thinking process with evidence to demonstrate how to come to an objective and rational conclusion a God truly exists outside of imagination. None of what you present is adequate for skilled, critical thinkers. This has been explained.

Question anything you want to but you will keep getting the same answers so why keep asking?

I'm curious how far you will take this. You're at the disadvantage since it is you posting claims that are dubious and show signs of distress. You seem to want critics to leave you alone, but you keep poking the bear. This is entertaining.

Why should care what is sufficient evidence for other people? I am not responsible for what you believe nor am I am your evidence delivery man.

Because in debate if you want to convince others you are correct you have to meet a certain standard of evidence. You rely on your own "say so" as if you are a God or Messenger yourself, which you have denied in the past. So as an ordinary mortal what makes your beliefs reliable enough for us to just accept them at face value, and require no evidence?

You don't go into court telling a jury what you believe and they should convict a person just because you think the person is guilty. You need to present evidence that meets an objective standard that can withstand scrutiny and tests.

Why do you keep asking for evidence AFTER I have told you what I have for evidence and it is insufficient for you?

Because every time you refresh your claim it demands a response. That's debate. You seem to think if you keep repeating false claims that it will become true at some point. THAT is propaganda.

If this is some kind of game to make me look foolish I consider that childish. I am not into games, I am too busy working.

This IS a game. We aren't on here solving the world's problems or curing cancer. This isn't important, nor life or death. We waste time here dabbling over ideas for the entertainment and challenge (occasionally).

 

[KWED]

Because we have worked our butts off to understand how we can understand God and the message of how we should be as humans, it takes years of dedicated practice. And I do not know any atheists who do that.

Circular logic.
People who already believe in god can find "evidence" for god.
People who do not believe in god do not consider the same to be "evidence".

Still, I have nothing against any person who is an Atheist. I have no reason to complain about people being non-believers because that is not up to me to tell them what is right for them.

Do you think it is unfair that Allah creates people knowing that they will go to hell? Do you think it is unfair that Allah only makes the "evidence" visible to Muslims? Why do Muslims need evidence for Allah? They already believe. It is the disbelievers who are going to hell who need the evidence, but Allah refuses to supply it.
Not only that, he states that he deliberately misguides them, and even "sets a seal on their heart so they cannot believe, even if you warn them".
What kind of a person would do that? What would you call someone who could easily save many people from a terrible death but chooses to let them die instead?

 

[Nimos]

It's the 'logic' of a philosophical materialist paradigm. A failed philosophical paradigm. But you can't see this because you are looking out from within that failed paradigm and seeking only to defend it.

Can you expand on this, what do you mean about the materialist paradigm?

 

[KWED]

That is a clear winner - you can't work with illogic. I will search for logic in your posts. Hope I succeed.

I think "Some people have claimed to be god's messenger, therefore that is evidence that god exists" is as far as you need to look.
Bombproof logic!

 

[KWED]

That God may have a purpose that includes us having the choice to know and Love our creator in the way the creator loves us.

Given that god is an omniscient, omnipotent, infallible being that inhabits all of space/time, and we are just mammals with very limited sensory capabilities - that is clearly not possible.
If that is part of god's plan, he hasn't really thought it through.

 

[KWED]

You would only seek God if you want to know if God exists and has a message for you.
Otherwise, you can go back to whatever else you are doing.

More circular.
You cannot seek god until you believe he exists, you can only look for evidence of his existence. If evidence for his existence is only apparent to those who already believe he exists, then that evidence is meaningless.

 

[KWED]

There are facts and there is information that indicate that my belief is true.

Excellent! We are finally getting somewhere.
So, what are these "facts" that show your version of god exists? (Fact: A thing that is known or proved to be true. - OED)