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

[Trailblazer]

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

What objective evidence do you use?
I bring objective evidence all the time.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

There is objective evidence for everything on my list. How people evaluate that evidence will be subjective.

 

[rational experiences]

I am a natural human.

I am supported logically by nature the planet and it's heavens.

I know I am aware. Innate human to eat and drink to remain alive. To look beyond myself the adult human is by a baby.

Yet you never owned the next life the baby is its own human life.

Natural aware natural spiritual human thinking for conditions self taught survival. Human in natural human living conditions.

Then all theisms. Extra applied not natural thoughts based on a superior motivation. Motivation self owned purpose only. Behaviour and intent.

A and the human teaching stating why no man is God. It was said for humans regarding chosen human behaviours.

Pretty basic human theism feedback.

Feed back. By the human experienced brothers and sisters hurt by your motivation to take theism I think I believe and I want into machines controlled by humans pretending human thoughts spoke on behalf of natural.. spoke on behalf of attacking natural.....then wanting both the machine to be a God and the machines reaction to be a God.

Human reasoned to state and teach why no man is God.

Now if memory says once humans never even had to eat food. That animals were not fierce. Man and beast docile together.

What proof would you have today to teach the notion?

First the status energy present naturally to support not eating.

Water. Mass of water. Energy food in water. Microbe energy natural food.

Thesis machine radiation mass ground water evaporation. Life abducted life taken by UFO presence effect. Fall out. Water by half gone removed. Half of natural pre existence gone.

Energy gone.

Teacher. Guru meditating remaining still in mediation not using energy. Hardly eats hardly drinks. Remains alive.

Chose in his human life to be a human teacher of human relativity. Cannot teach in any other human format what was pre known human advice.

Animals normally eat each other. Ice melts and huge ground water replacement occurs in scientific causes. Animals demonstrate meeting lying together having unnatural relationships normally as animals attacked or eaten.

Exact human wisdom seen the causes. We witness to teach as humans.

A human is alive conscious. Planet earth does exist it's heavens exists. Natural light in the vacuum. Balances

Cannot legally by human law argue about non presence. As that type of human theist was proven machine evil by intention....not any natural mass owner. As thesis terms of the God body itself.

As first his terms in human science is planet mass heavens mass.

The human teaching for humans as humans against self idolisation the theist thinker human.

Actually.

Science was the only wrong human thinker as rational human advice is natural first. First observation all whole bodies self present self owned.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your inability to produce any tells us that it is highly unlikely that you have any evidence.

 

[F1fan]

I wonder if she did truly fool herself. Some people do not think that reasoning is circular if the circle is large enough. Though I am still shaking my head at special pleading for God being okay because he is special argument.

The revelation that it was atheists challenging her beliefs and asking questions is what transformed her belief in God, to knowing God exists. So somehow poking holes in belief makes it more and more credible to the point it's proven true. Frankly my curiosity of all this is to see how far she will go. And she'd becoming more certain as more scrutiny is applied.

There's a book called Influence that outlines the psychological elements of how people become convinced of certain claims, like sales pitches. One example was an experiment the authors did. They saw a promotional seminar for spiritual lessons that was being advertised. So they attended a number of these free seminars and observed how the presentation worked, and assessed how many signed up for paid lessons. A person would give a presentation about how hard life is, and what they had to offer people to find peace and balance. There would be a question and answer session after. They observed about 30% of the people signed up for a set of lesson they found dubious.

So they wanted to test what would happen if HARD questions were asked to the presenter. They predicted fewer people would sign up since the sham was exposed. So they went to a presentation and at the end they asked some really hard nd uncomfortable questions for the presenter. They were shocked when a higher percentage went to sign up. Their conclusion was that most all people who showed up agreed with the promises of the lessons, but didn't sign up and pay because they were satisfied with their experience. When the authors challenged the presenters they also challenged the beliefs of those present. And their response was to sign up to tell the self that they really believed in the message of the lessons, and by paying proved they were committed. Their judgment was challenged, and by doubling down they felt some relief and exemption from making a poor decision that this set of lessons was valid.

The psychology of belief is really interesting.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Appearances can be deceiving. I am here because I am a fool, but at least I know that because I am very self-aware.

When you can show that I made errors I will accept the corrections. It is really sad when people don't realize that all they have is a personal opinion and it could be wrong. It is even more sad when people state personal opinions about other people as if they are facts.

Why is it important for you to point out MY errors? Does it make you feel superior to me? People who feel secure do not need to criticize other people.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

The Almighty God, the Creator of the whole universe, is not subject to piddly human logic. That is logic 101 stuff.

As far as evidence of God is concerned, it was provided.

 

[F1fan]

This means that we know he existed and, to a degree, what he was like.
It does not provide evidence that he was a messenger from god.

An important point that some of you seem to be losing sight of...
Before any claim that someone is a "messenger of god" can even be considered, first the existence of that god needs to be proved.
No one has done that, so any claim relating to that god can be dismissed as unreasonable until that god's existence has been demonstrated.

Exactly. Trailblazer offers a circular claim that Messengers of God prove a God exists because they are a Messenger of God.

An excellent example of a circular claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, but now you are merely repeating refuted claims.

I have no claims. Nobody has ever refuted my beliefs. All you and your cronies have are personal opinions. It is funny to watch but this is getting boring and time-consuming. I have no need to talk to atheists because I already know that God exists. This is just entertainment but I'd really rather be watching a TV show.

 

[Trailblazer]

So does that mean it's proven or not?

It is proven to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Good, because I am not interested in having a discussion with people who don't use logic and reason.

Happy trails.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

It is enough evidence if someone has extraordinary evidence.

Happy trails, again.

 

[Trailblazer]

So things got passed down orally then got written down. But, we can never know what the messenger's original teachings were. Or, religious beliefs got passed down and some got written down that had stories of multiple Gods, some had only one God, some had incarnations of Gods, some had their God or Gods speak from heaven and even intervene in the lives of the people, some had prophets, some had demons and some had angels. Now what makes more sense... That the one true God was behind all of this and let people mangle the original teachings, or there were no "original' teachings and people made up everything about their religion including their Gods and their messengers?

Yup, that is is exactly what happened, because humans have free will and God allows them to do what they choose to do, including mangling teachings of the Messengers.

 

[Trailblazer]

An important point that some of you seem to be losing sight of...
Before any claim that someone is a "messenger of god" can even be considered, first the existence of that god needs to be proved.

That is impossible because the Messengers of God are the only proof of God's existence. There is no other proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

This means that we know he existed and, to a degree, what he was like.
It does not provide evidence that he was a messenger from god.

No, it does not prove that. You have to look at the evidence, assess it, and prove it to yourself. There really is no other way to approach it, logically speaking.

 

[F1fan]

Why is it important for you to point out MY errors?

Because truth matters.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What objective evidence do you use?
I bring objective evidence all the time.

The arguments that I support tend to be scientific arguments. Though when you did keep screwing up on "knowledge" I did find a definitive source for you. Sadly that did not seem to work. All that is need to refute the vast majority of your arguments is to point out the logical errors. No source is needed for that.

 

[F1fan]

That is impossible because the Messengers of God are the only proof of God's existence. There is no other proof.

Then prove there are authentic Messengers of God.

They need to offer details about reality that can't be verified by any other mortal means.

Making clever statements won't be enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no claims. Nobody has ever refuted my beliefs. All you and your cronies have are personal opinions. It is funny to watch but this is getting boring and time-consuming. I have no need to talk to atheists because I already know that God exists. This is just entertainment but I'd really rather be watching a TV show.

Please, the last time that you made that false claim I immediately found a post of yours with a claim in it. You are not fooling anyone with that line.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is impossible because the Messengers of God are the only proof of God's existence. There is no other proof.

So no proof at all then. Okay, the thread can be closed now.