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

[Trailblazer]

It can't be done if it's unprovable, and you said that it's unprovable.

... so which is it?

It can be proven to oneself but it cannot be proven as a fact that everyone will accept as true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Great. Then if/when the extraordinary evidence shows up, I will believe in the extraordinary claim that God exists.

The claim that God exists is really not that extraordinary, except to atheists.
It is drop dead obvious to believers, as the evidence is everywhere.

 

[Koldo]

The claim that God exists is really not that extraordinary, except to atheists.
It is drop dead obvious to believers, as the evidence is everywhere.

If the existence of an invisible, omnipotent, and omniscient being, creator of the universe, that can't be substantiated by the sciences, is not an extraordinary claim, I have no idea what would count as an extraordinary claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

If the existence of an invisible, omnipotent, and omniscient being, creator of the universe, that can't be substantiated by the sciences, is not an extraordinary claim, I have no idea what would count as an extraordinary claim.

Well, maybe you have a point there, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I for one believe that Jesus Christ was sufficient evidence but Baha'u'llah was also very good evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sometimes I do.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Once a person has proven the premise to themselves then they know God exists!

And you cannot even do that since "proving to yourself" is meaningless. You just admitted as much as not having any evidence. "Proof" is not a personal thing. You are only convinced. You have lost and will continue to lose the debate on having an evidence based belief. Why not admit the obvious?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the fallacy does not apply to God because God IS the exception to every generally accepted rule.

Logical fallacies do not apply to God because God is not subject to logic.

Citation needed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that is true, it applies to everyone, including you.

True. That is why I try to use objective evidence that others can check when I make a claim. Please note, I do not make your error. I do not claim that there is no God.

 

[Trailblazer]

You just admitted as much as not having any evidence. "Proof" is not a personal thing.

I never admitted I don't have evidence. Repeatedly I have said that I do have evidence.
Proof is a personal thing because we can only prove a religious belief is true to ourselves.'''
nor is anyone obligated to prove to other people that their religious belief is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have lost and will continue to lose the debate on having an evidence based belief. Why not admit the obvious?

I am not IN a debate so I cannot lose a debate.
Why would you think I am in a debate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

All the Messengers of God provide the same kind of evidence, but the evidence for Baha'u'llah is more verifiable since there is written documentation whereas we do not have that for the previous Messengers that date back in history.

The following evidence (1-4) is objective evidence according to the definition because it can be examined and evaluated:

1. The character of Baha'u'llah
2. The life of Baha'u'llah
3. The mission of Baha'u'llah (the history)
4. The Writings of Baha'u'llah

What does objective evidence mean?

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.

What does objective evidence mean?

I am sorry, a list is not objective. But let's go over your list:

1. Sorry character is purely subjective. That fails.
2. That is even worse. It is extremely vague. That fails.
3. That is rather irrelevant and whether he succeeded or failed is also very subjective. That fails.
4. What about the writings? He might have written a good stick, but you cannot even find a good translation. That fails.

 

[Trailblazer]

True. That is why I try to use objective evidence that others can check when I make a claim.

So do I.

The following evidence (1-4) is objective evidence according to the definition because it can be examined and evaluated:

1. The character of Baha'u'llah
2. The life of Baha'u'llah
3. The mission of Baha'u'llah (the history)
4. The Writings of Baha'u'llah

What does objective evidence mean?

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.

What does objective evidence mean?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never admitted I don't have evidence. Repeatedly I have said that I do have evidence.
Proof is a personal thing because we can only prove a religious belief is true to ourselves.'''
nor is anyone obligated to prove to other people that their religious belief is true.

Your inability to produce any tells us that it is highly unlikely that you have any evidence. If you wanted to support your claims and had evidence a rationally thinking person would have posted it. What good would it do to withhold any evidence in a debate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not IN a debate so I cannot lose a debate.
Why would you think I am in a debate?

You appear tp be trying to. If you are not debating then why do you not accept the corrections to your errors?

By the way, I was serious when I said "Citation needed" and abusing the funny frubal is against the rules here. You made what appears to be a foolish claim. You need to support it. Where is the excuse ever given that God is an exception to the rules when it comes to logic or evidence? You might as well admit that your version of God does not exist when you post that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So do I.

The following evidence (1-4) is objective evidence according to the definition because it can be examined and evaluated:

1. The character of Baha'u'llah
2. The life of Baha'u'llah
3. The mission of Baha'u'llah (the history)
4. The Writings of Baha'u'llah

What does objective evidence mean?

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.

What does objective evidence mean?

Sorry, but now you are merely repeating refuted claims.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It can be proven to oneself but it cannot be proven as a fact that everyone will accept as true.

So does that mean it's proven or not?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Right. So you used that "absurd example" for a different purpose, not for a logical discussion.

Also, you still didnt answer a simple question. Let me cut and paste, for the third time. Lets see if you have any interest at all in any kind of reasonable discussion with reason and logic, not with "other purposes" in mind.

""I asked you what axioms in logic you stand with and you have refused to respond several times. So either you dont know what axioms you stand with, or you dont understand it. ""

Sorry, but you've already demonstrated that you're not interested in having a discussion using logic and reason. I'm not interested in wasting any more of my time.

 

[`mud]

the absence of a presence of existence......is all we need !

 

[night912]

I consider that a long time.

And so what if I start threads about God? After all, this IS a religious forum.

What seems odd to me and my husband also commented on this, is why so many atheists are on a religious forum.

What is even stranger is why so many atheists like to talk about God. Unless someone is holding a gun to their heads, why else would they flock to my threads like bees to honey?

It seems to me that the atheists are getting a whole lot more out of the threads I start than I am getting, since I get nothing but misery. Moreover, I already know that God exists so I don't need threads like this. That is why I don't start them for myself.

I hear a lot of people say, "opposite attracts." But in this case, it's actually similarity attracts, since both spouses are illogical for thinking that it's odd for atheists to be on a public religious debate forum. I wonder if both spouses also get upset really easy whenever they are shown to be illogical?

I'll just have to wait for the evidence to present itself.

 

[KWED]

Generalities are "absolute assertions" unless you choose to presume them to be. Why'd you do that, I wonder?

 

[KWED]

That is not a claim. It is my personal opinion. I do not claim it because I cannot prove it to you.

I have provided His evidence on innumerable occasions but it was thrown back in my face with comments such as "that's not evidence!" So why should I post it again?

I have no buck to pass because I am not responsible for doing other people's homework.

If someone asks for evidence to support an extraordinary claim, saying thing like "I believe it to be true, and that is enough evidence for me" is not actually evidence.
Similarly, if someone asked for your address and you gave them your shopping list, they would hand it back saying "that is not your address", and they would be right, and you would be wrong to insist that it is your address. Because it isn't.