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

[Dropship]

..To the extent Christians are discriminatory about relationships or abuse their professional influence for proselytising, they should rightly be opposed...

You can argue it out with JC when you meet him..-
Jesus said:-"Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, I'll be ashamed of him" (Mark 8:38 )

PS- when I was unemployed some 10 years ago the Jobcentre put me on the 'Working Links' scheme which was supposed to help people write CV's do phonecalls and how to jobsearch etc.
The WL people gave us a sheet of paper and told us to write a hypothetical job application letter, after which they'd look at it and tell us how it could be improved.
When they saw mine in which I'd said I was a Christian, a look of horror came on their faces, "You can't say that" they said "because employers wouldn't be interested in hearing it"
I also wrote in the letter that I was a non-smoker/non-drinker, and they said employers wouldn't be interested in hearing that either!

I responded by saying I'm sure that employers would be VERY interested in applics from Christians who'd never let them down, and nonsmokers who'd never keep sneaking off for smoke breaks, and nondrinkers who'd never turn up for work sloshed with a hangover.
But it cut no ice with the WL numpties, they just kept parrotting "You can't say that in applic letters".

 

[ratiocinator]

You can argue it out with JC when you meet him..-
Jesus said:-"Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, I'll be ashamed of him" (Mark 8:38 )

And you can arguing that with the real gods, when you meet them.

 

[PureX]

Actually the rules of logic has been developed over millennia and many theists have been involved. There is no atheist logic or theist logic, there is just logic. Nobody is trying to define it themselves - except, perhaps, for yourself.

I agree, but logic can lead to more than one conclusion at a time, and often does. Even though people want there to be only one "right" conclusion ... I.e., their own.

 

[Dropship]

You can argue it out with JC when you meet him..-
Jesus said:-"Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, I'll be ashamed of him" (Mark 8:38 )

And you can arguing that with the real gods, when you meet them.

What "real gods"? Where?
There are some right weirdos out there, for example check out this pair of sad egyptian freaks-

 

[ratiocinator]

What "real gods"? Where?
There are some right weirdos out there, for example check out this pair of sad egyptian freaks-

I find them exactly as believable as your god.....

 

[Dropship]

I find them exactly as believable as your god.....

You can worship that cockatoo Horus if you like mate but count me out..

PS- That reminds me, when I used to go out as a kid, my late mother would always say "Comb your hair, it's sticking up on top like a cockatoo"
Even now, 50 years later I still can't help glancing sideways at my reflection in shop windows to see if it's still sticking up.

 

[F1fan]

No, other members do not do what you do. They disagree with my beliefs but they don't criticize me.
Only one other member did that but the staff put a stop to it. I warned him but he thought I was not serious.

All this criticism of me is just your personal opinion which does not amount to a hill of beans.

Do you know how to do anything except criticize other people? Do you know how that makes you look? Do you realize that exposes your character for all to see, or maybe that does not matter. Maybe you are too obsessed with criticizing me to care.

You make religious claims on a religious forum, expect criticism of your claims. You are taking this too seriously and personal. That is your responsibility to limit your exposure to critique.

Your thinking is illogical, in my opinion, but don't feel too bad because Imo almost all atheists think illogically, and I have pointed out why and explained why Imo they are illogical. Unlike you, I don't tell people they are illogical without backing it up with the reasons why..

I understand you want to see it this way. But atheists and others are doing very well at explaining your views and thinking are highly flawed.

I know I am correct about God and Baha'u'llah, but I am not correct about everything else. I make many mistakes but I realize it, try to learn from it, and move on.

You have never once explained how you have knowledge. What it seems you are doing is embellishing your belief and claiming it's knowledge.

The rules of logic are available for anyone to understand. You either don't understand them or deny they apply to you.

You cannot point out any illogical thing I have said because if you could you would. Instead of citing examples you just say I am illogical. Anyone can say that another person is illogical, backing that up with actual proof is another matter.

Believing in God or Messengers of God is not illogical. You cannot make that work. Even if I say I know God exists that is not illogical because a strong belief breaks no rules of logic. What else have I done?

Your numerous logical fallacies have been pointed out by many people. It is very clear you are just in denial.

 

[F1fan]

Kids today are being indoctrinated by the education system into thinking that nothing is a clear-cut well-defined issue and that everything must be looked at from every possible angle and discussed and debated at length.

Can you give us a few examples of this?

As a result many kids grow up unsure of themselves, slightly neurotic and easily-controlled, which is exactly what the Establishment wants.

Who is the "establishment" and what makes you think they want this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You use your intellectual abilities to investigate the claims of the Messenger and what backs up His claims. If you decide that the claims are true then you accept everything He wrote, which is quite extensive.

Well, that's all rather vague, isn't it?

There is evidence that backs up the claims of Baha'u'llah. Some time ago when asked for evidence I posted the claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah on this thread:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

Another poster has already pointed out that those are incredibly vague as well. And also not demonstrable.

I never said that you cannot use logic and reason, you should always use logic and reason. God wants us all to use logic and reason and that is why were were created with a rational mind.

That doesn’t address what I said though. You keep saying we can’t apply logic to anything related to God(s). But that this God simultaneously implores us to use logic and reason (according to you).

And what kind of God would set up the world in this way? No God I'm interested in following. If I can't use the logic and reason that this God supposedly gave me since I can't actually use it to find and learn about God, then it sounds to me like this God is kind of a fool.

 

[ratiocinator]

You can worship that cockatoo Horus if you like mate but count me out..

You seem to have missed the point. I don't worship any god(s). I find your god no less absurd than any of the others.

 

[F1fan]

"Expected" by whom? You? No one else is required to abide by YOUR requirements for evidence or proof. They are only required to offer their evidence and their reasons for why they felt that evidence rose to the level of proof.

Claimants in debate aren't required to do anything unless they are in a debate class and it's part of their grade.

When open debate occurs like we are doing anyone is free to do whatever they want. There is no rule that members have to post logical claims, nor be able to defend their claims with valid evidence and a lucid argument. Members can claim all the nonsense they want. The thing is many participants have taken classes in debate and have learned how logic works, including the formal structure of debate. It's obvious there are members that don't understand the rules and structure of logic/reason and are very sloppy and crude in what they post. They will attract criticism. Whether they listen and learn depends on the person.

Again, no one is required to abide by what YOU consider rational thinking. Your rationale is based on your truth paradigm. Their rationale is based on their truth paradigm. Yours does not trump anyone else's. Yours is not the yardstick by which all truth and logical reasoning must be measured. And to expect that it should be is highly irrational, asit would be impossible for anyone else to meet this expectation.

I'm using the rules I learned from the tradition of logic/reason created by the ancient Greeks. The philosophers of the Enlightenment also worked with logic and reasoning to put forth criticism of Christianity and other philosophies. So this has nothing to do with me as you suggest.

A question to you: have you ever studied philosophy and how logic works as a formal and informal process of thought?

If you were such a savvy thinker, you would have realized that your own thinking (via these expectations) is irrational, and unworkable. It was never anyone else's job to overcome your defenses, or to meet your expectations regarding what is evidence and what is proof. You are not the standard-bearer for either.

My expectations are fairly simple: if someone on a debate forum makes a claim that isn't established as being true from experience or science then that claim is open for criticism, and from those questions it is reasonable to demand clarification and and a lucid explanation from the claimant.

If someone posts that they are a prophet from god and they know the world will end on January 23, 2022, well don't you think it is fair and reasonable to ask the claimant how they actually KNOW this? Who knows, maybe he's right, should we all start getting our affairs in order? But we don't just take the word of people for claims that are quite absurd and dubious. If the claimant gets upset that other members aren't convinced, then that isn't our problem. The claimant needs to understand the nature of the claim is fantastic and others will ask for verification, evidence, a lucid explanation, etc.

You are a theist, and theists tend to defend each other in the broad sense of belief, namely that theists want to shield their assumption that a God exists from questioning. Trailblazer was bold enough to claim that God is beyond question. That is an absurd claim. It reveals the insecurity many theists feels in these open debates.

It is neither ethical nor honorable to presume yourself to be the standard bearer for evidence and proof. It is neither ethical nor honorable to expect other people to take on the task of overcomming your ignorance and bias (because you don't see them as being ignorance and bias).

I never claimed this. What I adopt as a standard of evidence is used in logic and court. So if your dispute is with the standard I use then you need to dispute what the courts require as valid evidence. There are very strict rules of evidence in court. A prosecutor can submit evidence in a case, but if the evidence violates rules then the defense can object. Typically the lawyer has to cite a rule violation or why it's invalid evidence, and the judge will rule. These aren't arbitrary rules by lawyers and judges, there are established rules. These rules are established for the sake of order, fairness, and honor. Similar rules exist in logic/reason. Theists do want to rig the system of debate to embellish their evidence and negate criticism. Trailblazer's attempt to forbid God from being open to question is one such example.

So your criticism above is ironic. I never claimed to be the standard bearer for evidence, did I? I'm just advocating for the established norms. Your aim is to discredit me as biased, which is not the case at all. It is your bias trying to misrepresent my approach. It is atheists who follow the norms, and it is theists who want to set their own rules to rig the debates.

Same goes for atheist's and their idiotic, baseless, an irrational presumptions and claims. Welcome to the human condition. They get frustrated by the insane insistence that YOU are the definer of logic and reason, and that they must meet your standards or be labeled irrational. Which is an understandable frustration, especially as it's so hypocritical.

This is a strong accusation. So do you think it is baseless for people to NOT assume gods exist?

If not, clearly outline a list of atheists irrational presumptions and claims. Explain why they are idiotic. Explain what is baseless about not accepting religious beliefs a priori.

And your ARE learning??? All I'm seeing is you dismissing someone else truth claims because they didn't meet your standards for evidence of proof. I don't see you even considering anyone else's standards for evidence or proof. You simply auto-defend, and learn nothing. Exactly the same as you accuse others of doing.

I'm not obligated to accept anyone's claims in a debate forum. And as noted I have adopted the norms of what constitutes standards of evidence. Do you think it is problematic that courts use a high standard of evidence? If not, what opposition do you have for this high standard in logic and debate?

Objectivism is a myth-based ideology, but you don't understand this. And you will never understand it so long as you continue to auto-defend it instead of trying to see it the way some others can.

Objectivity is a set of guidelines to approach science and reasoning. It's not any sort of ideology. It's certainly not based on any myth, where did you get that idea?

What a load of egocentric nonsense.

Irony.

Trump often did this. He would accuse others of what he did, like his corruption. This is called projection and indicates a person knows they are guilty of what they are accusing others of doing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I just said to @9-10ths_Penguin, I think the primary reason that atheists cannot believe in God is because they are illogical. He helped me to see that so I thank him for that. I cannot reason with people who are illogical.

But logic can't be applied to God.

Right out the door what you say is illogical because there is evidence for God's existence whereas there is no evidence for the existence of magical pixies and tooth fairies. The fact that you do not LIKE the evidence that God provides is moot. It is still the evidence.

What do you mean there is no evidence for the existence of tooth fairies? There is more evidence for that then there is for the God you keep invoking. After all, when my niece puts her tooth under her pillow at night, when she wakes up in the morning, there is money there that the tooth fairy left. If you don't believe me, ask her mother, who is a Messenger of the Tooth Fairy who will attest to the fact that the tooth fairy came.

Another logical error atheists make is whenever they say the omniscient God made a mistake and God should have done something differently to accommodate their needs. NOTHING in the world could be more illogical because no human can know more than the all-knowing God who created humans about what humans need to believe in God, which means that however God provided evidence of His existence was in accordance with human needs.

But logic can't be applied to God. Which is probably why this statement doesn't make any sense.

Another logical error atheists make is when they say the God is omnipotent so God should give me what I want. NOTHING could be more illogical. Omnipotence implies God is all-powerful so God could give you what you want but omnipotence also implies that God only does what God chooses to do became nobody can tell God what to do. Logically speaking, that means you will only get what you want if God chooses to give it to you.

But logic can't be applied to God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I wasn't impressed with such "evidence" from muslims concerning the quran and mohammed, I wasn't impressed with such "evidence" from christians concerning the bible and jesus. Why would it impress me for this religion?

You could only know that if you looked at it.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

I'm not seeing any evidence there. I see the piling on of claims, circular argumentation, etc.

We all see things differently.
There are claims and there is evidence that support the claims.

 

[Magical Wand]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

I would say the common arguments for the existence of God (e.g., Cosmological, Contingency, Teleological, Scriptural, Axiological) would be evidence if they succeeded. So, the relevant question isn't "What would be evidence?", but rather "Are the arguments successful?"

 

[Trailblazer]

That they represent god on earth, is a claim.
A claim that assumes a god exists.
A claim that is not in evidence.

There is evidence that supports the claim.

Even calling them "messengers" is wrong. That's the very thing that needs to be established first.
At this point, they are "people claiming to be messengers".

And there is evidence that supports their claims.

And that "evidence" is just more claims.

The evidence is not the claims. There are claims and there is evidence. These are separate.

 

[PureX]

Claimants in debate aren't required to do anything unless they are in a debate class and it's part of their grade.

This isn't a debate class. It's a philosophical discourse. There are no winners or losers. There are just proposals, justifications, and considerations. Claims find acceptance or they don't. It's not a battle.

My expectations are fairly simple: if someone on a debate forum makes a claim that isn't established as being true from experience or science then that claim is open for criticism, and from those questions it is reasonable to demand clarification and and a lucid explanation from the claimant.

Experience and science may be YOUR criteria, but you are not the determiner of this for anyone but yourself. And it's not the obligation of anyone else to meet your criteria.

If someone posts that they are a prophet from god and they know the world will end on January 23, 2022, well don't you think it is fair and reasonable to ask the claimant how they actually KNOW this?

I, personally, wouldn't bother asking. As there is no possible answer they could give me that would allow me to determine if their claim were true or false. I might be curious about how they became convinced of it, but not because I'm seeking any possible justification.

Who knows, maybe he's right, should we all start getting our affairs in order? But we don't just take the word of people for claims that are quite absurd and dubious.

Why do you conclude that their claims are absurd and dubious? Why is that your default designation for a claim that cannot be proven to you to your satisfaction? Who put you in charge of determining the absurd and dubious?

If the claimant gets upset that other members aren't convinced, then that isn't our problem.

It isn't that they are upset because you aren't convinced, it's that you label anything you can't be convinced of as being absurd and dubious.

The claimant needs to understand the nature of the claim is fantastic and others will ask for verification, evidence, a lucid explanation, etc.

Those others need to understand that when they demand evidences and proofs that cannot exist they are thinking and behaving quite irrationally. Perhaps even more irrationally than their opponent.

You are a theist, and theists tend to defend each other in the broad sense of belief, namely that theists want to shield their assumption that a God exists from questioning.

I am also agnostic, and profoundly non-religious. So I'm not here to defend theists, or religious theologies. I am simply arguing in the interest of clarity and honesty in the face of a lot of ignorance and bias on both sides.

Trailblazer was bold enough to claim that God is beyond question. That is an absurd claim. It reveals the insecurity many theists feels in these open debates.

Personally, I don't think you've understood her claim at all. I think you were far too intent of labeling it "absurd and dubious" based on an ego-driven auto-defense. Perhaps you could learn something from her if you were to investigate why she perceives God as something "beyond question".

I personally agree with her statement, just on the face of it. If God exists (whatever that even means) it is quite clear to me that it exists in some way and form that would be beyond my capacity to coherently question (investigate). I don't know if this is what she meant, but I'm just pointing out that once you stop auto-defending your own biases you might be able to learn something. That is, after all, the real point of philosophical debate. Not to "win" or "lose" a battle royale with someone else's philosophical truth paradigm.

I never claimed this. What I adopt as a standard of evidence is used in logic and court.

What YOU adopt as a standard of evidence is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Because YOU are not making the truth claim, someone else is. And so it's THEIR standard of evidence and THEIR threshold for proof that matters. This is what you don't seem to be able to grasp, here.

There are very strict rules of evidence in court.

This is not a court, and you are not a judge. It's a philosophical truth proposition being offered, not a crime being committed.

Trailblazer's attempt to forbid God from being open to question is one such example.

Trailblazer can't forbid God from being questioned. You can question God all you like; if you can figure out how to do that. All she seems to be saying is that you can't do it through her. Which makes sense to me. I certainly would not presume to speak for God to facilitate an atheist's interrogation.

I never claimed to be the standard bearer for evidence, did I?

Well, yeah, several times just in this last post! And then when someone does not meet your standards, you label them absurd and dubious. But it was never their obligation to meet your standards. It was your obligation to try and understand theirs.

I'm just advocating for the established norms.

No, you're advocating YOUR norms as being universal, when they very clearly are not.

So do you think it is baseless for people to NOT assume gods exist?

I think it's foolish to assume we know things that we don't. And I think it's dishonest to claim to know things that we don't. And worse, I think the moment we think we know something is the moment we stop learning about it.

If not, clearly outline a list of atheists irrational presumptions and claims. Explain why they are idiotic. Explain what is baseless about not accepting religious beliefs a priori.

That would take a book. And you wouldn't read it, anyway. I have stated my opinions about the foolishness of the atheist position many times on many threads, here. I'm sure the subject will come around, again, soon enough. And you won't honestly consider my opinions, then either.

Objectivity is a set of guidelines to approach science and reasoning. It's not any sort of ideology. It's certainly not based on any myth, where did you get that idea?

"Objective reality" is a conceptual myth based on the assumption that we can "objectively" know what we can't possibly know any way but subjectively. Because we are the 'subjects' doing the knowing. "Objective reality" is the reality that exits beyond our ken. We cannot get there from here.

 

[Dropship]

Kids today are being indoctrinated by the education system into thinking that nothing is a clear-cut well-defined issue and that everything must be looked at from every possible angle and discussed and debated at length.
As a result many kids grow up unsure of themselves, slightly neurotic and easily-controlled, which is exactly what the Establishment wants

.

Can you give us a few examples of this?
Who is the "establishment" and what makes you think they want this?

Just look at the easily-controlled mushbrained snowflakes and millennials running around who've lost their grip on reality because they're victims of the corrupt establishment which wants to control people.
The "Establishment" is politicians, TV and film producers, teachers etc.
Christians however, can't be controlled which is why the estab hates Christianity..

 

[ratiocinator]

Christians however, can't be controlled which is why the estab hates Christianity..

Genuine laugh out loud! Many Christians have been controlled and totally indoctrinated into evidence-free, contradictory beliefs.

Note that I'm offering you exactly the same amount of evidence for my claim above as you have provided for your claims about "easily-controlled mushbrained snowflakes".

Perhaps try a little logic or evidence for a change, eh?

 

[Hawkins]

Atheists basically created a dilemma for themselves.
If God is not evidenced then they won't believe in God to be saved in accordance to the New Covenant. If on the other hand, God is evidenced such that they can't be saved by faith anymore in accordance to the New Covenant.

 

[Ludi]

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

Hi, I have finished writing out what I said I would concerning proving the existence of God, through science, Scripture, truth, and thousands of years. I had already posted a few things concerning this hoping to start a conversation about it, but after talking to my parents, I now think it's better to just post the whole thing at once. And I just wanted to add this first because it would not be proper to add it to the message, as I want to keep it in a pure form. And I will post this on your board if it is still ok with you, as it was you I made this promise to. Anyways if that is ok just let me know, till then hope everything is good. Thank you and have a great day.