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

[PureX]

Try thinking outside the box in modern terms mate, Jesus was technically an alien visitor ("I am not of this world") and had knowldege of a superscience ("If you do not believe me, believe the miracles"), so it follows that all open-minded truthseekers will want to listen to him.

Assuming you don't automatically believe every story you read is factual in every detail, why did you choose to believe the story of Jesus is factual in every detail?

 

[Dropship]

Assuming you don't automatically believe every story you read is factual in every detail, why did you choose to believe the story of Jesus is factual in every detail?

Ah, but 27 books (the New Testament) about Jesus were written, not just one, and they all provide a useful cross-reference to each other..

 

[PureX]

Ah, but 27 books (the New Testament) about Jesus were written, not just one, and they all provide a useful cross-reference to each other..

I've read some of them, and they quite clearly show a great disparity of ideas and opinions about who Jesus was. And if those authors were that unclear and personally opinionated, I would have to be even more suspect of their stories, especially of claims like performing miracles and raising from the dead. Just simple logic would dictate that people exaggerate for literary effect, especially about someone they hold to be a great importance to them.

Keep in mind the George Washington is said to have never told a lie and to have thrown a dollar coin across the Patimac River. Feats that he clearly could not have actually accomplished. And we're only a few hundred years on. Imagine the imbellishments after a few thousand.

 

[Dropship]

I've read some of them, and they quite clearly show a great disparity of ideas and opinions about who Jesus was. And if those authors were that unclear and personally opinionated, I would have to be even more suspect of their stories, especially of claims like performing miracles and raising from the dead. Just simple logic would dictate that people exaggerate for literary effect, especially about someone they hold to be a great importance to them..

When the first gospels were written, why did nobody- not even a single person - from the snooty priests or Romans or the people ever come forward to say "Baloney, it never happened"?

 

[F1fan]

The "Establishment" are the sick controlling authorities, they and their lackeys hate Christianity because it's onto all their sly little tricks..

OK, give us 10 specific names of the "establishment", and then explain what they are doing that is "sick", and then explain how they hate Christianity.

I have no idea what you are talking about with your vague claims.

 

[F1fan]

You are right, it is not something an ordinary person can see or understand, but why should it be?

Then why did your prophet use an analogy of a "lamp in the other room" as how easy it is to access this supposed evidence? Your prophet says it's easy and obvious, you are saying it isn't.

But that is not because there is not good evidence, there are other reasons why everyone cannot see it.

1) what reasons are there that some can't see it?
2) how do the rest see this evidence? What makes them special and different than the others?

The lamp quote was just to make a point, it was not to be taken literally. Of course everyone won't see it, the point is that it is possible to see it if you go into the room but IMpossible to see it if you don't go into the room.

The dogma isn't about looking at lamps in the other room. The meaning of the analogy is that the evidence is as OBVIOUS as a lamp in the other room. But given all you have posted the evidence is not available to open minds that only have to observe this evidence existing. Your evidence requires conditions, and those conditions are to assume certain things, like a God exists, and that there are messengers of God. Neither of these assumptions can be justified. There are no facts that suggest either are valid. I understand you cite some quotes, but upon reading them there is nothing spectacular about them. They often make their own assumptions that have to be accepted for the message to be treated as true/valid. A messenger should be offering obvious and verifiable claims that require no assumptions.

 

[Dropship]

OK, give us 10 specific names of the "establishment", and then explain what they are doing that is "sick", and then explain how they hate Christianity.
I have no idea what you are talking about with your vague claims.

Just look around mate, evil-minded teachers, politicians, TV and film producers etc, are all trying to push their sick agendas on us.
They hate Christianity because it's onto all their little tricks..

As ex-bounty hunter Paul said-
"..our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil.." (Eph 6:12).

 

[ratiocinator]

When the first gospels were written, why did nobody- not even a single person - from the snooty priests or Romans or the people ever come forward to say "Baloney, it never happened"?

Quite apart from anything else (and there's a lot in this baseless assertion to take issue with), are you claiming to know exactly what everybody said 2000 years ago....?

 

[ratiocinator]

Just look around mate, kids indoctrination begins at the hands of evil-minded teachers, politicians, TV and film producers etc, all trying to push their agenda on us.

Just like Christians.

As ex-bounty hunter Paul said-

Quoting your book of myths, is still utterly pointless when you're trying to argue with people who don't accept its supposed authority.

 

[Dropship]

..are you claiming to know exactly what everybody said 2000 years ago....?

The Bible is a written record going back thousands of years, so why should we dismiss it simply because its old?
I mean, if people buy books about Elvis 5000 years from now, far from dismissing them, people would treasure them because they were written by authors who lived in Elv's time..

 

[ratiocinator]

...are you claiming to know exactly what everybody said 2000 years ago....?

The Bible is a written record going back thousands of years, so why should we dismiss it simply because its old?

What has your 'answer' got to do with my question?

 

[Dropship]

Just look around mate, evil-minded teachers, politicians, TV and film producers etc, are all trying to push their sick agendas on us..

Just like Christians.

Nah mate, Christians are kool, calm and collected because theyre quite content to leave it to God to kick butt in that great courtroom in the sky..-

 

[F1fan]

No, I only take it personally when *I* am criticized. I don’t care what anyone says about my beliefs or ideas.

When we debate we can make errors, and others pointing out our errors might feel personal and that the person is being criticized, but it's really just how the person is misusing the process of reason, by not following the rules that govern logical discourse.

Making mistakes can hurt the ego, but that is a risk the debater imposes on themselves when they sign up and participate.

That is not special pleading on my part. It is special pleading when atheists ignore aspects of God that they want to deny, things that make God special and different than any human. THAT is special pleading.

What you claim as "special" is part of the concept of God you are claiming. It's not a fact. You are not describing a real phenomenon, you are claiming your belief is true, and is off limits from questioning or challenge. THAT is special pleading.

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, then God exists.

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

IF...... So now you need to prove the premise true, and by using facts, not assumptions, not belief.

 

[F1fan]

Just look around mate, evil-minded teachers, politicians, TV and film producers etc, are all trying to push their sick agendas on us.
They hate Christianity because it's onto all their little tricks..

Are you having a hard time citing who you think these people are?

 

[Dropship]

Are you having a hard time citing who you think these people are?

The list is as long as my arm and would fill another 50 forum pages..

 

[Subduction Zone]

The list is as long as my arm and would fill another 50 forum pages..

That unfortunately is just a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Yes, they do not seem to be very Christian, but people are weird. They can often compartmentalize their thinking so that they can hold mutually inconsistent ideas. They may not be your type of Christians, but they are still Christians. And when I was a Christian I did not like those Christians either. And I like them even less today.

 

[PureX]

When the first gospels were written, why did nobody- not even a single person - from the snooty priests or Romans or the people ever come forward to say "Baloney, it never happened"?

I'm not aware of anyone actually claiming, publicly, and in writing, that George Washington was in fact a liar, and that he never threw any coins across the Potomac River. And that was just a few hundred years ago, when there were lots of people writing down all kinds of things. So why would we expect there to be any evidence, now, after 2000 years, of anyone calling out the story of Jesus? That would seem a very weird thing to expect to find, and then cite the lack of as some sort of reverse validation.

I'm not saying that the biblical story isn't accurate. I wasn't there, so I can't know if it is or not. But I do know that we humans have a very strong tendency to embellish the stories we tell each other to emphasize the ideas and events that we feel are important. And clearly this is the story of a person and of events that a lot of other people have decided is very important to them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 )

You can be proud of your religion without behaving like a jerk to your coworkers and clients at work.

 

[Dropship]

..I do know that we humans have a very strong tendency to embellish the stories we tell each other to emphasize the ideas and events that we feel are important.

Yes but Christians don't do "fib" because they're hooked on the truth..
For examp the gospels say some of the disciples ran away from the crucifixion in case the Romans would nab them and say "Your turn next".
And later some woman fingered Peter and said "You were in cahoots with that Jesus bloke", but he swore he wasn't.
The point is nothing like that has been edited out of the bible to make the people in it look squeaky clean, that's why we can trust it because it's come down to us over the centuries warts and all.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

If they want to be believed, they need to meet the criteria for belief of the one they are trying to persuade.

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.

His truth paradigm is the same as mine and that of everybody else skilled in critical thinking. It's not an arbitrary or subjective standard for arriving at sound conclusions. And those not conforming to it are making logical errors, which many are qualified to identify, although many more are not, especially those making these errors. Some of them are savvy enough to be shown these errors, see that they are errors, and improve their critical thinking skills. Those who have learned critical thinking were once like that - not too adept at valid reasoning, but aware of that, and aware that there is a right and wrong way to reason, that is, a logical way to think, and many illogical ways.

But there is another population that don't understand these things, and seem to think that reasoning is subjective, that their reasoning is just as valid as any other, and don't see the logical fallacies even when they are clearly pointed out and explained.

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.

Well, if it's an attempt at reasoning and it's not rational, it's irrational. The standards for declaring an argument rational or irrational are understood by many, and misunderstood by many more as we see here on RF.

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.

Really? If somebody makes a truth claim, it's their criteria for belief that matters? Not to me. All that matters when I am evaluating any claim or argument is my standard for belief. Odd that you would suggest otherwise.

If an atheist tells me they choose to believe that no gods exist because they prefer to see themselves living in a godless universe, I have to respect their choice.

Respect their choice, but not their thinking. That's just more faith based thinking.

The experienced critical thinker doesn't ever choose what to believe. He never says, I want such-and-such to be true, therefore I believe it is. He goes where the application of valid reasoning to relevant evidence takes him. If he finds the argument compelling, he becomes a believer. If he sees flaws in the argument, he rejects its conclusions as non sequitur, or that which does not follow from what preceded it, which a restatement of the idea that there is a proper way to reason, failure of which to do results in non sequitur, and is rejected even over cries that "My thinking is just as good as what others call correct thinking."

Isn't that what many people here are telling at least two of the theists present? - logic isn't arbitrary. I've used the example of adding a column of multi-digit numbers, which is an exercise in pure reason getting from addends to the correct sum. There is only one proper set of rules for adding, and only one correct sum. Skilled and careful adders come to the same conclusion, and they are correct. If one makes a mistake, he sees that all of the others agree on a different sum, and rechecks his work, finding his error and correcting it.

To make the analogy apt, imagine other adders not so skilled, not yet aware that there is only one correct answer, making mistakes, coming to a wrong conclusion, being told as much, then insisting that he doesn't need to meet anybody else's criteria for adding, which are just their personal opinions, and no better than their own.

At that point, the discussion is over. What can you say to a person who doesn't merely reason improperly, but who is unaware that there even is such a thing - that it is possible to reason badly?

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.

How did the atheists create that dilemma? Let's assume that this God exists, has created man with the ability to reason, and has set up a world where if he uses that reasoning ability instead of believing a particular one of thousands of unevidenced stories about gods going around, he is punished. Who created this dilemma? If we are to believe the Garden story, this God has been setting people up for failure since Eden.

Those are just personal opinions. Nobody ever proved I committed any logical fallacies.

Not to you. It can't be done. There is never a burden of proof with somebody who cannot follow the argument whether because of confirmation bias or just plain lack of ability to recognize a correct claim about fallacious reasoning. Either way, to have a burden of proof, one first needs to want to make his point, and he has to be doing it with somebody that is sufficiently trained in critical thinking to understand his argument, decide if it is valid or fallacious, and be willing to believe what he finds to be a compelling argument. If the student doesn't bring those skills and that attitude to the table, nothing can be proved to him using argument, and it can be safely assumed that all of his beliefs not directly derived from experience are believed by faith, since there is no other way for a new idea to get into his head.

Many of us are satisfied that you have committed a specific set of logical errors. I understand that that means nothing to you, but that's part of the problem. You'll likely incorrectly call that an ad populum fallacy as you often do when confronted by consensus, but you would be in error again. The argument isn't that you are incorrect because a lot of people say so. The argument is, from each of them, that your reasoning is flawed, and they agree just how it is flawed.

That ought to mean something to you. I assure you that if a half dozen people knowledgeable about an area all agree that I am wrong, I would begin with the belief that I am probably wrong, and engage in dialectic with some or all to resolve the discrepancy, something we can do if we agree on what is relevant evidence and sound reasoning. We go back to our point of departure, where they all zigged when I zagged, I can see my mistake (or much less likely, their identical mistakes), correct my thinking, and thank them for the education.

But your response to the same situation is very different. You just reject them all out of hand. Why? Because you don't recognize that they can be right and you wrong (or you don't care), much less that that is likely to be the case.