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

[Tiberius]

@Tiberius
You can't blame 'a god' you don't even believe in .. try mankind .. you do believe they exist, don't you.
They would be the ones killing each other.

G-d does not need their help. He knows the real reason that people fight.

Hang on, hang on...

When did I ever say, "It's all God's fault! I blame him! I don't think he exists, but everything's his fault anyway!"

When did I ever say that?

Or are you getting confused about the nature of a hypothetical situation?

 

[muhammad_isa]

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.

Personally, I don't care if other people can't see what I see, and am not concerned about being in a minority.

The fact that I'm not in a minority, is a bonus.

 

[samtonga43]

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.

The fact remains that I see purple. Your conviction that I am wrong is immaterial. No matter how many times you tell me it is not purple, I see only purple.
My evidence (not my opinion) is there, right before my eyes; purple.

It was a poor analogy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact remains that I see purple. Your conviction that I am wrong is immaterial. No matter how many times you tell me it is not purple, I see only purple.
My evidence (not my opinion) is there, right before my eyes; purple.

It was a poor analogy.

No! It's an excellent analogy since we were discussing evidence. But then, you may not understand the concept of evidence either. We were specifically discussing what makes evidence reliable. You are making her mistake and proving my argument.

 

[Tiberius]

Personally, I don't care if other people can't see what I see, and am not concerned about being in a minority.

The fact that I'm not in a minority, is a bonus.

Good for you.

You certainly seem eager to engage in debate with people for not seeing things the way you do, though.

 

[samtonga43]

No! It's an excellent analogy since we were discussing evidence.

As I have shown (maybe my point escaped you?), your analogy is inadequate because it leads you to believe you have evidence that these tiles are blue....

But then, you may not understand the concept of evidence either.

Oh, the irony!!

We were specifically discussing what makes evidence reliable. You are making her mistake and proving my argument.

Your little analogy says nothing about what makes evidence reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I have shown (maybe my point escaped you?), your analogy is inadequate because it leads you to believe you have evidence that these tiles are blue....

Oh, the irony!!


Your little analogy says nothing about what makes evidence reliable.

No. Are you paying attention? It does not appear that way. There are ways to verify the color of the tiles that does not depend upon an opinion. Your mistake was the same as hers, you do not seem to understand the concept of what reliable evidence is and how it is determined. A personal opinion about color is not all that reliable. If someone disagrees about the color of such an object there is a way to determine which one is right. Her "evidence" does not have that trait. That is why it is not reliable evidence.

Just because a person does not understand how evidence is verified does not mean that the evidence cannot be verified.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just because a person does not understand how evidence is verified does not mean that the evidence cannot be verified.

We were talking about evidence for God.
Do you have verifiable evidence for God?
If you had verifiable evidence for God would you still be an atheist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We were talking about evidence for God.
Do you have verifiable evidence for God?
If you had verifiable evidence for God would you still be an atheist?

I do not know of any verifiable evidence for God. I do not know of any reliable evidence for God.

And yes, if there was strong evidence for a God I would believe.

 

[Tiberius]

I do not know of any verifiable evidence for God. I do not know of any reliable evidence for God.

And yes, if there was strong evidence for a God I would believe.

Ditto.

Like you, I go where the evidence indicates.

 

[samtonga43]

No. Are you paying attention? It does not appear that way. There are ways to verify the color of the tiles that does not depend upon an opinion. Your mistake was the same as hers, you do not seem to understand the concept of what reliable evidence is and how it is determined. A personal opinion about color is not all that reliable. If someone disagrees about the color of such an object there is a way to determine which one is right. Her "evidence" does not have that trait. That is why it is not reliable evidence.

Just because a person does not understand how evidence is verified does not mean that the evidence cannot be verified.

Please try to concentrate on what I'm saying.

It is not my 'opinion' that the tiles are purple. I did not look at them and say to myself, "Now, what do I think about these tiles? What is my opinion concerning these tiles?"

I might conclude that they are the wrong colour for my kitchen (too dark) but I have no 'opinion' about what to call the colour. What my eyes see is the evidence. The tiles are purple.

Do you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please try to concentrate on what I'm saying.

It is not my 'opinion' that the tiles are purple. I did not look at them and say to myself, "Now, what do I think about these tiles? What is my opinion concerning these tiles?"

I might conclude that they are the wrong colour for my kitchen (too dark) but I have no 'opinion' about what to call the colour. What my eyes see is the evidence. The tiles are purple.

Do you understand?

I know what your failed argument is. Once again, you are the one that is not listening. You screwed up. At least twice. Go back and read again. It doesn't matter if you really saw purple or not.

 

[samtonga43]

I know what your failed argument is. Once again, you are the one that is not listening. You screwed up. At least twice. Go back and read again. It doesn't matter if you really saw purple or not.

Of course it does! As I suspected, you have missed the point entirely. Re-read.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it does! As I suspected, you have missed the point entirely. Re-read.

Wrong again, it appears that you deliberately missed the point. And now you are once again accusing others of being guilty of your error.

 

[samtonga43]

Wrong again, it appears that you deliberately missed the point. And now you are once again accusing others of being guilty of your error.

It appears to you. LOL! This means nothing.
But let me help you to think rationally; I see purple, you see blue.
We both believe the evidence in front of our eyes.
We do not have opinions. We have evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It appears to you. LOL! This means nothing.
But let me help you to think rationally; I see purple, you see blue.
We both believe the evidence in front of our eyes.
We do not have opinions. We have evidence.

Sorry, I am not the one that is not thinking rationally here. You are the one that screwed up. You appear to be thinking that people made an argument that you wish them to have made,not the one that they did make.

When you fix your mistake then we may be able to have a discussion.

 

[Trailblazer]

It appears to you. LOL! This means nothing.

What it means is it is not evidence because it is not evidence to me.
Which is the position of every atheist I have ever known.
Of course it means nothing except that in their opinion it is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What it means is it is not evidence because it is not evidence to me.
Which is the position of every atheist I have ever known.
Of course it means nothing except that in their opinion it is not evidence.

No, once again there are ways to tell if evidence is reliable or not. They do not rely on opinion. That was the purpose of my tile example that @samtonga43 either misrepresented or could not understand. He may claim that they are "purple" as in his example that would be an example of "evidence to him", but there are ways to determine the color that do not rely on subjective observations.

Reliable evidence is going to be based upon objective observations. The so called prophets that you list have not even been properly defined as to what a "prophet" is in the first place. Then you have not shown that they have those qualifications. All you have is "a man I trust said this". That is extremely poor evidence. It would be called hearsay in a court of law. If you properly qualified that person's expertise then you would have a bit more going for you, but you have never used rational means to do so. That leaves you with only an irrational belief since none of it is supported by anything close to being objective evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Reliable evidence is going to be based upon objective observations.

Logically speaking, there can never be any objective observations of God since God can never be observed.
The only evidence for God that we can observe are the Messengers/Prophets of God.

The so called prophets that you list have not even been properly defined as to what a "prophet" is in the first place. Then you have not shown that they have those qualifications.

I could define what a Prophet is and I could show how the Prophets I believe in met those qualifications.

All you have is "a man I trust said this". That is extremely poor evidence.

You are arguing against a straw man. Dozens of times I have said on this forum that what I believe is not evidence of anything. What people 'believe' is not evidence of any kind. The evidence is who the Prophet/Messenger was as a person, what he did on His Mission, and what He wrote.

That leaves you with only an irrational belief since none of it is supported by anything close to being objective evidence.

Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

 

[samtonga43]

Sorry, I am not the one that is not thinking rationally here. You are the one that screwed up. You appear to be thinking that people made an argument that you wish them to have made,not the one that they did make.

When you fix your mistake then we may be able to have a discussion.

There's that 'appear' word again. I have discovered that things that 'appear' to you to be the case usually are not the case.

Tell me, how do you know that what you call 'blue' is not actually 'purple'?

I have tried to have a discussion with you in the past. You run away when you're eshown to be wrong.