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

[Nimos]

"Honor" is a bit of reality that cannot be physically demonstrated, and yet the fact that you know what I'm referring to would clearly indicate that it is a 'real' phenomenon. It can be inferred through physical interaction, but the physical interaction does not contain or define the honor. The honor has no physicality. It is a meta-physical phenomenon. The philosophical materialist refuses to acknowledge the existence of metaphysical phenomena. Even though that refusal to acknowledge is, itself, a metaphysical phenomenon.

But isn't that equally to saying that someone is a "Liar" it simply refer to some behavior that we have given a label, so we can easier communicate with each other. And I even think that "Liar" is better defined than "Honor" is, because we could much easier disagree about that than whether someone ought to be referred to as a "Liar" because the conditions for that is simply to not tell the truth on purpose. Whereas we might disagree about what "Honor" is.

But even then, how would we demonstrate that "Honor" is not part or a result of the physical world, when we haven't observed it to exist without it? Meaning without a physical brain could "Honor" exist? I don't see how a philosophic explanation or solution is adding to this, or even how it causes problem for a materialistic world view? Wouldn't you have to demonstrate that the idea of "Honor" is not an invention or a natural cause of nature or lifeforms?

 

[PureX]

Nonsense. It applies to any proposition at all. You propose a god, then it's up to you to give people a reason to take your 'god' (however you're defining it today) seriously.

Well, we can give them a reason to consider our proposal, but a whole lot of people aren't going to. What they're going to do instead is immediately look for reasons to dismiss and discredit the proposal, regardless of it's possible validity, because it does not align with the reality paradigm they already hold. Which is why so may people obsess over the phrase "burden of proof" lie it's a box of gold. As they (mis)interpret that phrase, it gives them the "right" to block, obfuscate, mischaracterize, deny, and reject the proposal being presented by any means necessary, and then for them to walk away proclaiming that the proposal didn't meet the "burden of proof".

'Burden of proof' doesn't mean that it must overwhelm one's ignorance and bias. It just means that the proposal is logically logically be sound.

 

[Trailblazer]

I meant that it's a problem for the approach that you suggested: establishing that God exists by establishing that "Messengers of God" really were sent by God.

As far as I can tell, there's no rational way for a person to arrive at belief in your God. Not with the parameters you've put on it, anyhow.

Then maybe you can find another way. I know a couple of people who were once atheists and they are now believers and they don't believe in Messengers at all. They came to belief in God as a result of crying out to God and getting an answer.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is so sad when one tries to use a dictionary and fails.

What is sad is when someone is wrong and cannot admit it.

 

[PureX]

But isn't that equally to saying that someone is a "Liar" it simply refer to some behavior that we have given a label, so we can easier communicate with each other. And I even think that "Liar" is better defined than "Honor" is, because we could much easier disagree about that than whether someone ought to be referred to as a "Liar" because the conditions for that is simply to not tell the truth on purpose. Whereas we might disagree about what "Honor" is.

Honor is not a behavior. It's an ideal. Lying is a behavior. They are not at all equivalent.

But even then, how would we demonstrate that "Honor" is not part or a result of the physical world, when we haven't observed it to exist without it?

It does not matter that honor is "part of" or even the "result of" the physical realm of existence. It has now become a transcendent phenomenon of it's own. So there is no need of any such demonstration.

Meaning without a physical brain could "Honor" exist?

Again, this doesn't matter. The brain function exists, physically, the mind (cognition) exist metaphysically, within it. They are very clearly not the same things. Any more than a tree and it's shadow are the same things.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your beliefs failing even that abuse of a dictionary definition.

The dictionary definition did not come from my beliefs, it came from the internet.
You cannot admit that all knowledge is not demonstrable because then you would have to admit you were wrong.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This is the fallacy of false equivalence because the verification process for elections is completely different from the verification process for a Messenger of God. Moreover, one claim (that Trump lost) can be proven as a fact, the other claim (Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God) can only be proven to oneself. It can never be proven as a fact that everyone will believe.

It does not matter what millions of people believe, it only matters what is true. That is another fallacy, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

I already know that you require verifiable evidence and as such it is a done deal. You are not going to believe in God because there will never be any verifiable evidence.

Of course God knows the evidence you require, God is all-knowing. Why would you think that God expects you to change the threshold of evidence that you require?

Again, that is the fallacy of false equivalence because Trump's messengers are not equivalent to a Messenger of God and the claims they make are not the same, so the evidence required to back up those claims can NEVER be the same.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

For some bizarre reason you think I expect you to be any different from who you are.


The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence. While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.

God in the Baháʼí Faith

God has a plan to get His message out to everyone but that does not mean that everyone will recognize the message. I never claimed that. God knows that everyone will not recognize His Messenger but that does not mean that the message did not get out to everyone. It is out on the intranet for everyone to read in the Baha’i Reference Library online as well as available in print in over 800 languages.

God does not care whether everyone recognizes the Messenger, God only care that the Messenger successfully completes His mission and writes His scriptures. That was accomplished against all odds.

God does have a desire for everyone to believe, but only on His terms, as I have told you before. Logically it is God who sets the terms since He is the one who provides the evidence. Humans cannot set terms for an omnipotent God, that is illogical. In short, we get what we get from God and that is all we are going to get because God does not have to give us anything He does not choose to give us. In fact, God does not have to give us anything at all if He doesn't want to. It is only by God's mercy that He even sends Messengers because God can afford to dispense with all of humanity since God does not need us for anything. And then people complain that Messengers are not good enough evidence. I can only imagine what God thinks about these ungrateful people, but I am fairly certain that God is not thinking "well, looks like QM needs some other verifiable evidence, I had better hop to!"

This is the fallacy of false equivalence because the verification process for elections is completely different from the verification process for a Messenger of God. Moreover, one claim (that Trump lost) can be proven as a fact, the other claim (Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God) can only be proven to oneself. It can never be proven as a fact that everyone will believe.

It does not matter what millions of people believe, it only matters what is true. That is another fallacy, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

The trump election is an analogy. An analogy is never an exact equivalency. It simply points out similarities. So you pointing out that my analogy is not an exact equivalency does not in any way invalidate it as a apt analogy. I wasn't claiming the the verification processes in both cases was an analogy. The similarity I was pointing out is that in both cases people must accept the claim without verifiable evidence.

Also, I'm not making an appeal to the popularity of the claim. I was pointing out the similarity in the number of people who use accepting claims without verifiable evidence to reach their conclusions in both cases. That is to say, it's just as easy to accept unverifiable claims, be they about a god being or the results on an election. In fact you can convince yourself that absolutely any claim is true, as long as you're willing to accept unverifiable evidence to do so.

Again, that is the fallacy of false equivalence because Trump's messengers are not equivalent to a Messenger of God and the claims they make are not the same, so the evidence required to back up those claims can NEVER be the same.

Again, this is an ANALOGY... it is never intended to be an exact equivalency. I'm NOT claiming that Trump's messengers and your god's messengers and the claims that they make are exactly the same. What I AM claiming is similar is that in both cases you have followers who are accepting that a claim is true solely based on what the 'messengers' claim is true.

God is a special case, a very special case, a case UNLIKE any other case, because God is not verifiable and never will be verifiable because God is not subject to verification. Please explain how a God defined as below can EVER be verified. Try to use your logical mind.

Sorry, but your employing the logical fallacy of 'special pleading'. Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard.

Being skeptical and insisting on verifiable evidence before accepting significant claims as true is a method that has served me well in every other aspect of my life. I'm not about to make an exception for your god being just because you say I have to. Just like I don't make an exception when it comes to demanding verifiable evidence that the election was stolen or that the pandemic is a hoax or that magical pixies are real. Just because I define magical pixies as something that can NEVER be verified, does that suddenly mean that you're willing to believe in them without verification?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

The definition of God is below and it has evidence. The evidence is God's intermediaries known as Manifestations of God, who are the prophets and messengers that have founded religions from prehistoric times up to the present day. That is the only way we can have any knowledge of God. We might be able to know that God exists if we pray for that knowledge and God answers our prayer but that would not be very useful because we would not know anything about God or His will for us. We would only know that God exists. Big deal. What good is that?

God in the Baháʼí Faith

The Baháʼí view of God is essentially monotheistic. God is the imperishable, uncreated being who is the source of all existence.[1] He is described as "a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty".[2][3] Though transcendent and inaccessible directly, his image is reflected in his creation. The purpose of creation is for the created to have the capacity to know and love its creator.[4] God communicates his will and purpose to humanity through intermediaries, known as Manifestations of God, who are the prophets and messengers that have founded religions from prehistoric times up to the present day.[5]

The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence. While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.

 

[Nimos]

Honor is not a behavior. It's an ideal. Lying is a behavior. They are not at all equivalent.

Yes and no, because how would you say a person have honor? Its is through their actions that you can judge that, if they are just standing there staring blank out in the air, you wouldn't be able to say whether they are honorable or not, according to what you think honor is. Again I might disagree with you.

It does not matter that honor is "part of" or even the "result of" the physical realm of existence. It has now become a transcendent phenomenon of it's own. So there is no need of any such demonstration.

I don't get that, how do you demonstrate that you and me agree on, what "Honor" is?

Again, this doesn't matter. The brain function exists, physically, the mind (cognition) exist metaphysically, within it. They are very clearly not the same things. Any more than a tree and it's shadow are the same things.

This is not exactly the same, because cognition haven't been demonstrated to exist without a brain, whereas the shadow of the tree, have nothing to do with the tree at all, the shadow is caused by the lack of light. If you remove the light the tree can't cast a shadow.

If you remove the brain, at least with our current understanding, there would be no mind.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I am trying to show you that your example is invalid, and won't work. Its not logical.

You are saying that creating a universe within this universe at some place on earth as a demonstration is up to the creator to decide how, but you are not trying to apply your thinking cap into understanding that its not a logical proposition. Anyway, you won't engage with that because you will never be able to provide your time to think.

Can you tell me what logical axioms do you give value to? Or lets say 'accept'?

Okay... so NOW you want to start defining this creator being, after insisting that I make up a definition for myself. By MY definition of this creator being demonstrating the creation of another universe to someone on planet Earth is a simple matter that doesn't defy logic in any way, since MY creator being exists outside of time and space and isn't limited by any pesky physical laws.

 

[Trailblazer]

Those are claims in need of evidence.

I have posted the evidence on this forum numerous times, so there is no point posting it again, just to hear all the atheists say "that's not evidence" again.

Ta ta for now.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

No, there is no problem because there is only one true God, the God who sends different Messengers in every age. All the true Messengers of God speak for the one true God and bring a different message in every age, according to the needs of humanity in that age.

People have many beliefs about that God, many conceptions of God, but a belief is just a belief. The fact that people "believe" in many different Gods does not mean that they exist in reality because beliefs do not make anything true.

 

[Ludi]

That would be pretty good evidence.

Sorry I didn't reply sooner was working and sleeping. And thank you for your response I will try to post a few things concerning this over the next few days. Till then have a great day.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

As I just said to you, I believe there is only one true God, the God who sends Messengers in every age. All these Messengers are evidence of God because they all represent God in this contingent world. I believe all those Messengers were sent by the one true God, who reveals more truth progressively throughout the ages. I follow Baha'u'llah because He brought the message that is pertinent to the age we are living in.

Perhaps the diagram below will help you better understand what I believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

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"?

No, that is not evidence. Evidence everything that is gathered by the detectives who are investigating the case and after it is gathered it is given to the prosecutor.

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

I did not say that. I said that God does not do it and the reason God does not do it is because God wants us to investigate the truth for ourselves.

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

I do not believe in hell, at least not the Christian version. It is not God’s responsibility to keep us from hell, it is our responsibility. God gives us what we need to get to heaven and avoid hell but if we reject what God gives us through the Messengers then God cannot be blamed because we all have the capacity to recognize those Messengers and what they revealed.

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?

That is the fallacy of false equivalence because God is not a human, so God cannot be compared with a human parent. Also, adults are not children so adults are responsible for taking care of themselves. God gives us what we need but if we do not utilize it we cannot blame God.

 

[Trailblazer]

What was this "evidence"?

The evidence I was referring to is what is revealed by the Messengers of God who establish all the great religions.
It would help if you understand what I mean by religion.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is sad is when someone is wrong and cannot admit it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The dictionary definition did not come from my beliefs, it came from the internet.
You cannot admit that all knowledge is not demonstrable because then you would have to admit you were wrong.

And you still do not understand how you failed. Did you watch that video that I provided for you? It is both humorous and instructive.

 

[Koldo]

God is omnipotent so God could do that if He wanted to, but I would not hold my breath if I were you, although you could pray for God to open your eyes.

You didn't answer the second part of my question though.

"Do you agree that God could, if he wanted, grant me spiritual eyes that would allow me to see him in a similar manner that I can see the moon with my physical eyes? And that doing so would not violate my free will since granting me physical eyes doesn't?"

 

[Spirit of Light]

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

Because spiritual practice is not about physical worldly objects