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

[Trailblazer]

I think you misunderstand what we're doing here. I'm not making a case that Mary Baker Eddy is a "Messenger of God;" I'm asking you to make the case that only the people you consider to be "Messengers" meet your criteria.

Admittedly, my criteria are based upon who I believe were Messengers of God.

I think that Mary Baker Eddy is a useful test case, because at least at face value, she ticks all the boxes.

If you aren't game, then we could explore something else... such as why you think that your criteria imply that a person must be a "Messenger of God."

My criteria criteria imply that a person must be a "Messenger of God if they met my criteria because I believe that any men who met my criteria were Messengers of God. In other words, unless they met all these minimum criteria they could not have been Messengers of God, according to my beliefs about what a Messenger of God is and what He does.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer - you know what? I've had a change of heart. Instead, let's explore why you keep on making these threads.

Why do you:

- create a thread about atheists and their beliefs,

- steer the conversation so that the thread becomes all about you and your beliefs,

- weirdly insist that you haven't steered the thread to make it all about you,

- repeat the whole process a few months later as if you didn't learn a single thing from all the times you did this before?

What do you get out of it?

You are too late, I already answered your post.
But I will answer thus one now before I I go on to some earlier posts I still have to answer.

Why do you:

- create a thread about atheists and their beliefs,

I have not started a thread like this for a long time. What elicited this thread is what an atheist said to me on another thread. I finally got sick of hearing "that's not evidence" so as the OP says, I wanted to know what would be evidence that God exists for atheists.

- steer the conversation so that the thread becomes all about you and your beliefs,

That is a false accusation. I did not steer the conversation to be about my beliefs. The very last thing I want to do is talk about my beliefs. All you have to do is read on this thread to see how it ended up being about my beliefs. It was other people who steered it that way. All I did was respond to the posts that were posted to me. I have done nothing but answer posts since I started this thread. I was really sorry I ever posted this thread after I realized that I would have so many posts to answer.

- weirdly insist that you haven't steered the thread to make it all about you,

What is weird about that? This thread is not about me. It only BECAME about my beliefs because others kept posting to me and I responded. I am not going to respond with what I do not believe.

- repeat the whole process a few months later as if you didn't learn a single thing from all the times you did this before?

You are right, I should have known better, but we all make mistakes.

What do you get out of it?

Nothing but misery. I posted it ONLY for the reason I stated in the OP, but that did not work because only a couple of people even answered what I asked in the OP. All people want to do is challenge my beliefs and then they blame me for responding. I am sick of talking about my beliefs. I only answer posts because I consider that the polite thing to do.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not hostile, I'm just colorful. And outspoken. Are you defensive? Just asking. Because it kind of looks like it.

So misrepresenting facts, and the misrepresenting the stands of your debate opponents is just "color"? Being deliberately deceptive is vastly different than being outspoken.

Well, one man's religion is another man's cult. When I find myself confronting a wall of willful ignorance, determined dishonesty, obfuscation, and bias, I feel like I'm dealing with a cult.

No, you are just dealing with people who get science right, and can reason with facts. That is neither religion or a cult.

Vehemently! But you have to be willing to recognize and acknowledge it's existence, to see it. And like most cults, or addictions, or whatever ideological aberration we want to call it, the purveyors are oblivious of it.

You're the only one who has mentioned the word. Getting science right isn't an "ism". It's just being educated.

I'm saying what I'm seeing. I have not accused any single person of any single thing. People have to see these things for themselves, or they aren't ever going to see it no matter what I say. So all I can do is present the picture and let others decide for themselves if it resembles them, or not.

Your misrepresentation and harsh judgment of people who can get science right, and reason to a degree that recognizes religious claims can't be judged true, is MORE than what you are just seeing. You are interpreting what you see in ways that assume your beliefs are correct, and skeptics are wrong. But instead of presenting facts and a coherent argument that your views are correct, you attack and accuse, and don't get any of it right.

 

[F1fan]

God is omnipotent

Prove it.

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.

Prove a God exists, and then that it has this kind of morality.

If you can't prove any of this, we reject what you write here as nonsense.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

But there was verifiable evidence for the election results so how is that similar to NOT having verifiable evidence for God's existence?

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.

But again, there was verifiable evidence for the election results so how is that similar to NOT having verifiable evidence for God's existence?

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.

That is not similar at all. Trumpsters accept the claims of Trump solely based upon what he claims is true but I never accepted what Baha'ullah claimed based upon what He said was true. I only accepted Him because of the evidence that supports His claims.

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.

I know exactly what special pleading is but it does not apply in this case because I fully justified the exception.

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2]

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

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.

But it will never work for belief in God for the LOGICAL reasons I stated, namely that the God being can never be verified the way you require because God is not here on earth. What about that do you not understand?

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?

I never told you to make an exception. It s your choice if you want to make an exception or not.

There is no good reason to believe in magical pixies so that cannot be compared with God. There is not only a good reason to believe in God, there is evidence for God, whereas there is no evidence that indicate that magical pixies exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you can't prove any of this, we reject what you write here as nonsense.

Why would I care what you reject as nonsense?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is nothing circular about it.
Why would you seek God if you already knew He existed?
You can look for evidence of His existence and that is what God wants you to do.
That evidence is not only apparent to people who already know that God exists.

I did not believe that God existed before I found the evidence in the Baha'i Faith. I knew nothing about God because I was not raised in any religion. I found out about God by reading the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

But you only believe you know. Knowledge is demonstrable. Mere belief is not. Or "If you don't know it you can't show it." When you try to use end up using circular arguments, such as "I know because I know".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I watched the silly video but it does not prove that I failed because it presupposes that what the man said in video is right and he is dead wrong becaue:

1. There are other kinds of knowledge that he does not mention, and
2. He says there has not been an advance in religious knowledge since the Bible.

Nothing could be funnier or further from the truth. It is so sad when atheist rely upon the Bible to rank on religion. They are so ignorant that they don't even know that the Bible is not the only holy book. There have been three more revelations from God since that Bible was written.



No, knowledge is not what some man who has an agenda against religion says it is, it is what is defined in a dictionary.

Definition of knowledge

1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding

c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition

d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned

2 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

b archaic : a branch of learning

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

We have been discussing if someone actually knows something . You are abusing a definition because in reality you probably fear that you do not know. The arguments that you make only confirm that you do not know. Once again, knowledge is demonstrable. Your shallow dictionary definition fails.

 

[Trailblazer]

When you try to use end up using circular arguments, such as "I know because I know".

That has NEVER been my argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That has NEVER been my argument.

It pretty much simplifies to that when you are asked how you know.

 

[F1fan]

KWED: "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.

OK, so you acknowledge that claims are not evidence.

You acknowledge that belief is not evidence.

You acknowledge other people saying something it true isn't evidence.

Think how that impacts you on this forum.

 

[Trailblazer]

We have been discussing if someone actually knows something . You are abusing a definition because in reality you probably fear that you do not know. The arguments that you make only confirm that you do not know. Once again, knowledge is demonstrable. Your shallow dictionary definition fails.

I did not abuse a definition, I just posted a dictionary definition. I can find some other dictionary definitions if you want me to.

Lots of times I am wrong, but in this case you are wrong and I am right. All knowledge is not demonstrable.
Why not just man up and admit you are wrong. It would not kill you. Some knowledge is demonstrable but all knowledge is not demonstrable.

 

[Trailblazer]

It pretty much simplifies to that when you are asked how you know.

I have always said I know because of the evidence.

 

[firedragon]

Okay... so NOW you want to start defining this creator being, after insisting that I

Nope.

I am just saying you should explain how a universe can be created within the universe on the earth for you to see because that's what you asked for. And I asked for what kind of logical axioms you value or agree to.

It is you who tried to define this so called creator to suit your terms. Read your post carefully.

 

[F1fan]

I never changed my mind. One can prove that God exists to oneself, but not to others.

Yet yesterday you only believed god existed. Today you claim to know. Did something happen? If so, tell us the indisputable evidence that you, as a fallible mortal, became aware that a God exists as a fact. Be sure to explain the process you used that made sure the experience wasn't imagined.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, so you acknowledge that claims are not evidence.

You acknowledge that belief is not evidence.
You acknowledge other people saying something it true isn't evidence.

I never said that claims are evidence.
I never said that beliefs are evidence.
I never said that other people saying something it true is evidence

Over and over and over again I have said that none of the above is evidence of any kind

Think how that impacts you on this forum.

If people believe how you just tried to misrepresent my position that is their prerogative. I could not care less what those people think.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet yesterday you only believed god existed. Today you claim to know. Did something happen? If so, tell us the indisputable evidence that you, as a fallible mortal, became aware that a God exists as a fact. Be sure to explain the process you used that made sure the experience wasn't imagined.

I know what I believe is true.

I would not waste my time explaining the process to you now that I know this is just a game for you.
I will leave the children to play in the schoolyard. I have more important things to do.

 

[Nimos]

However, we can prove to ourselves that He was a Messenger of God which proves that God exists since a ‘Messenger of God’ cannot exist if there is no God.

It is not a prove then. Then it is simply you convincing yourself of it being true.

Definition of Proof
1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

If you prove to yourself that something is true, then it is not a fact or an established truth. Gravity is an established truth, no one is going to argue against gravity as being a fact. And if they do, we can perform countless of demonstrations of why gravity is real and therefore an established fact.

It just doesn't make sense to prove anything to one self and then assume it is a truth. That is messing with the definition at best and fooling one self. The reason for this, is that you can prove anything to yourself, because there is nothing preventing you from not making mistakes. That is one of the reasons we demand people that make claims to provide evidence for what they are saying, if they ever want to make their claim anything other than that.

You must be able to see the issue with what you are saying? Take a flat earther for example, they have proven to themselves that the Earth is flat, but we know that this is neither a fact or an established truth. And the Earth can't be both shapes at the same time, so either they are correct that it is flat or they are not, but it can't be both shapes, regardless of whether they have proven it to themselves or not. They have simply fooled or convince themselves of something, which is of absolutely no value, until they provide enough evidence to show that they are correct. Therefore it can never become a proof, unless you throw your claim out there for others to test and verify, and eventually if everyone that test it, reach the same conclusion that what you are saying is true, then it will become a proof and an established truth.

Nobody can prove that God exists as a fact that everyone will accept because God can never be located and observed. All we can do is prove to ourselves that God sent a Messenger, which is proof to us that God exists since a Messenger of God is proof that God exists. Obviously the Messenger is only proof to those who believe he was a Messenger of God.

Again, that is not what a proof is. And if you can't prove God exist, then how on Earth are you going to prove to yourself that he send a messenger? When your requirement for this is impossible to prove and you even admit that it is impossible. So I don't understand why this is not the very last conclusion that you would ever accept, because it is the one that have the absolute minimum amount of evidence, and you are even aware of it.

Even if it is circular reasoning that does not mean it is not logically valid.

It is when you are trying to establish the truth of something. Because you simply can't make a sound argument, because you have nothing to work with except assumptions, which can't be verified.

I cannot prove that my premises are true, so I am not presenting an argument. I was never trying to prove anything to anyone; I just present what “I believe is true.”

Yes, that is what you are doing, you are sharing your conviction that Bahai is correct. Just as a Christian or Muslim would share what they believe is true. You simply have to leave out the part of proving stuff to yourself and that this have some sort of value, because it really doesn't and its not only in regards to religious beliefs, its like that with any belief.

The problem you immediately run into is that you cannot demonstrate that God exists without the Messenger. However, we can demonstrate that the claims of the Messenger are true.

How would you do that, when their claim is that they got their information from something we can't prove exist? Again, I said it before, I or any other atheist or people from other religions do not care, what Baha'u'llah set of good things, its completely irrelevant in regards to the claim of him getting this from God or not. Because I have no way of verifying that God actually said these things or not, maybe God said something completely different and Baha'u'llah heard wrong or misunderstood it. I can't verify it, so its completely irrelevant whatever things he said. It does nothing in regards to the claim of whether he got this from God or not.

So all we gave is the evidence that indicates that a Messenger was telling the truth and His claim is valid. We can never have anything else.

Even if that was true, it would do nothing in regards to the claim of whether he got it from God or not, maybe he just made a lucky guess, I need to be able to tell the difference, and talking his word for it, is simply not going to cut it. It would be exactly the same as if you asked me to prove that the bible was true, and the very first thing I do is to say that "We can read in the bible that...", of course the bible is going to verify itself, so its pointless to use that as argument.

What is illogical is for atheists to ever expect God to be demonstrated without some link between that God and humanity. The Messengers of God provide that link.

I don't think that is true, if people believe that God is an intervening God, then we should be able to detect that, but so far we haven't. And if God is not intervening, then why should we care about him.

 

[F1fan]

Why would I care what you reject as nonsense?

I notice you don't bother with evidence or a coherent argument. It's as if you are aware your personal beliefs aren't adequate.

 

[F1fan]

I know what I believe is true.

Irrelevant since your standards are low. What about those with high standards? That's who you are trying to convince here.

I would not waste my time explaining the process to you now that I know this is just a game for you.
I will leave the children to play in the schoolyard. I have more important things to do.

If you had one you would be very excited about proving your "knowledge" is valid. Yet you are avoiding it. Perhaps you used no such process. You just decided you have knowledge. Possible? If not, then post your process and prove you have knowledge.