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

[mikkel_the_dane]

That sounds like an excuse that a person who doesn't reason rationally would use.

Rationality is a human behavior and just like as human mobility has limits, rationality has limits.

• I can do nothing using rationality.
• I can do everything using rationality.
• I can do a limited set of behavior using rationality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That sounds like an excuse that a person who doesn't reason rationally would use.

Take #2
There is one of the words relevant to rational, namely objective and one of its definitions:
"... expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations ..."
Definition of OBJECTIVE

I have tried and I can only be objective in a limited sense. That connects to rational and its limits.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe there are more possibilities than the 3 you list.

What are the other possibilities?

 

[joelr]

They are very logical but I doubt you would realize that which is why I don't bother presenting them.

I have no emotional investment in believing in God, I only believe because of the evidence. I don't even like God, so why would I want to believe in God? I do not like religion either but I am stuck with it because I believe it is true. If I followed my feelings instead of my rational mind then I would become an atheist.

To say that all theists have an emotional investment in their beliefs is the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Then why allow "evidence" to have so many errors? and still consider it good evidence? What happened to rational minds?

 

[Trailblazer]

Because he can see that you did fail when you tried to support your belief rationally. There is no ego in that observation.

The observation "you did fail" is egotistical. Sorry you cannot understand that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What are the other possibilities?

That is unknown, what objective reality is including if there is a Creator God or nor, but that is not limited to God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why allow "evidence" to have so many errors? and still consider it good evidence? What happened to rational minds?

I don't know what evidence you are referring to or what you mean by errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The observation "you did fail" is egotistical. Sorry you cannot understand that.

It is a bit strong, but then when people are polite it did not work either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know what evidence you are referring to or what you mean by errors.

Do you remember the criteria for a reliable prophecy?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know what evidence you are referring to or what you mean by errors.

How you want the honest answer?

You confuse subjective and objective in some cases. But a lot of people do that and it is not limited to religion.
I also do it from time to time, but I try to learn when somebody claims that it is possible to do differently that I do it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is a bit strong, but then when people are polite it did not work either.

Yeah, we are all irrational to varying degrees and that as far as I can tell includes my masturbation and your preferred form of mind sex.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is a bit strong, but then when people are polite it did not work either.

Work for what, that is the hundred-dollar question.

 

[Tiberius]

Then can you explain why he keeps saying I have failed and I am in error? Do I say that about atheists just because I disagree with them?

When someone can never admit they are wrong and keeps saying it is me who is wrong what is that called?
Tell me what other believers on this forum take all the flak I take from atheists yet I still try to be polite.

I don't know what other believers cop a lot of flak on this forum. I don't participate in many debates at the moment.

But I find it hard to understand how you can ask what it's called when someone can't admit they are wrong and instead try to place the blame on you. You seem to have missed the possibility that perhaps it is you who is wrong.

But that belief of "I'm right and nothing will convince me otherwise" is something that I (and many other atheists) have seen countless times in believers.

And before you ask, the thing that will get an atheist to admit they are wrong (at least, atheists like me and, I presume, @Subduction Zone) is testable evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you remember the criteria for a reliable prophecy?

Yes, but how is that related to what @joelr said?

joelr said: Then why allow "evidence" to have so many errors? and still consider it good evidence? What happened to rational minds?
Tb said: I don't know what evidence you are referring to or what you mean by errors.

 

[joelr]

I don't know what evidence you are referring to or what you mean by errors.

many scientific statements have been debunked. The "new" philosophy is not new. The prophecies are terribly vague and no better than OT prophecies.

He says science should always be respected but about evolution - “ʻAbdu'l-Bahá states that humans are a distinct species, and not an animal, and that in every stage of evolution through which humans progressed, they were potentially humans.”

Which is not correct.


ʻAbdu'l-Bahá suggested that a missing link between human and apes would not be found.

Several intermediate species have since been found. Actually dozens have now been found, H. Heidlebergensis is the last link before H. Sapien.



Abdu'l-Bahá made statements about biology that were later proved wrong,

The chapter in ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's Some Answered Questions which mentions aether differentiates between things that are "perceptible to the senses" and those which are "realities of the intellect" and not perceptible to the senses.

Since that time the aether has been proven wrong many times in physics.


Baháʼu'lláh wrote:

Strange and astonishing things exist in the earth but they are hidden from the minds and the understanding of men. These things are capable of changing the whole atmosphere of the earth and their contamination would prove lethal."


Later his followers tried to claim this was radioactive materials. Plutonium doesn’t change the atmosphere, sounds like an attempt to make the statement fit. He forgot to mention we would make bombs and power plants from this.The God decided to give science advice but leave it super cryptic so it could fit many things. Instead of demonstrating it's actually a God and just saying heavy atoms will release high energy photons when they decay. But you can use it for energy because mass and energy are equivalent.

Bahá'u'lláh in the early 1860s, claimed that Copper can be turned into Gold and that its secret lies hidden in his knowledge. He also claimed that changing of one element into other (transmutation of elements) would become reality.

This never happened and never will. However in the mid 1800's science did believe this would be a possibility. They did not yet understand atomic structure. Clearly this is the words of a man with only knowledge of the time.


‘Abdu’l-Bahá claimed that “bodily diseases like consumption and cancer are contagious” and that “safe and healthy persons” must guard against it


Nope not contagious. Again, this reflects thoughts by doctors at this time. Clearly not speaking for a God.

In the thread where some scientific writings were linked to a year or 2 ago there were several other mistakes in attempts to produce some science and medical concepts. They were outlined in a thread, I would have to search for it.
This is just like the Islam scripture where the science is no greater than what is already known (actually this attempts predictions which all are incorrect). This man is a poet and a prolific writer of praise literature. Nothing more.



"One Baháʼí commentator acknowledged that the comments by ʻAbdu'l-Bahá are not in line with current scientific understanding, but that ʻAbdu'l-Bahá should not be regarded as infallible in scientific matters."

Because he's a man and not a God.

 

[Trailblazer]

But I find it hard to understand how you can ask what it's called when someone can't admit they are wrong and instead try to place the blame on you. You seem to have missed the possibility that perhaps it is you who is wrong.

I do not believe I am wrong about what I believe but the hundred million dollar difference between me and those who tell me I am wrong is that I do not tell other people that they are wrong. I only say "I believe."

But that belief of "I'm right and nothing will convince me otherwise" is something that I (and many other atheists) have seen countless times in believers.

I am not saying "I'm right and nothing will convince me otherwise" I am saying "I believe." It is not about me being right and others being wrong. It is about my certitude of my beliefs.

And before you ask, the thing that will get an atheist to admit they are wrong (at least, atheists like me and, I presume, @Subduction Zone) is testable evidence.

And you already know that there is no such evidence. God tests us, we do not get to test God. That's the breaks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know what other believers cop a lot of flak on this forum. I don't participate in many debates at the moment.

But I find it hard to understand how you can ask what it's called when someone can't admit they are wrong and instead try to place the blame on you. You seem to have missed the possibility that perhaps it is you who is wrong.

But that belief of "I'm right and nothing will convince me otherwise" is something that I (and many other atheists) have seen countless times in believers.

And before you ask, the thing that will get an atheist to admit they are wrong (at least, atheists like me and, I presume, @Subduction Zone) is testable evidence.

Well, atheist's as atheists has nothing in common other than being humans and lack the positive belief in gods.
We can't agree on what testable evidence is if you look closer.

Example:
Observation of the word "see" is that same for I see a dog and I see that 2+2=4.

 

[Trailblazer]

many scientific statements have been debunked. The "new" philosophy is not new. The prophecies are terribly vague and no better than OT prophecies.

He says science should always be respected but about evolution - “ʻAbdu'l-Bahá states that humans are a distinct species, and not an animal, and that in every stage of evolution through which humans progressed, they were potentially humans.”

Which is not correct.


ʻAbdu'l-Bahá suggested that a missing link between human and apes would not be found.

Several intermediate species have since been found. Actually dozens have now been found, H. Heidlebergensis is the last link before H. Sapien.



Abdu'l-Bahá made statements about biology that were later proved wrong,

The chapter in ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's Some Answered Questions which mentions aether differentiates between things that are "perceptible to the senses" and those which are "realities of the intellect" and not perceptible to the senses.

Since that time the aether has been proven wrong many times in physics.


Baháʼu'lláh wrote:

Strange and astonishing things exist in the earth but they are hidden from the minds and the understanding of men. These things are capable of changing the whole atmosphere of the earth and their contamination would prove lethal."


Later his followers tried to claim this was radioactive materials. Plutonium doesn’t change the atmosphere, sounds like an attempt to make the statement fit. He forgot to mention we would make bombs and power plants from this.The God decided to give science advice but leave it super cryptic so it could fit many things. Instead of demonstrating it's actually a God and just saying heavy atoms will release high energy photons when they decay. But you can use it for energy because mass and energy are equivalent.

Bahá'u'lláh in the early 1860s, claimed that Copper can be turned into Gold and that its secret lies hidden in his knowledge. He also claimed that changing of one element into other (transmutation of elements) would become reality.

This never happened and never will. However in the mid 1800's science did believe this would be a possibility. They did not yet understand atomic structure. Clearly this is the words of a man with only knowledge of the time.


‘Abdu’l-Bahá claimed that “bodily diseases like consumption and cancer are contagious” and that “safe and healthy persons” must guard against it


Nope not contagious. Again, this reflects thoughts by doctors at this time. Clearly not speaking for a God.

In the thread where some scientific writings were linked to a year or 2 ago there were several other mistakes in attempts to produce some science and medical concepts. They were outlined in a thread, I would have to search for it.
This is just like the Islam scripture where the science is no greater than what is already known (actually this attempts predictions which all are incorrect). This man is a poet and a prolific writer of praise literature. Nothing more.



"One Baháʼí commentator acknowledged that the comments by ʻAbdu'l-Bahá are not in line with current scientific understanding, but that ʻAbdu'l-Bahá should not be regarded as infallible in scientific matters."

Because he's a man and not a God.

Fair enough. Abdu'l-Baha was not infallible and he should not have been addressing scientific subjects because that was not within his purview. I believe he was wrong on more than those things. Baha'u'llah did not grant him authority to speak about science, only religion.

 

[joelr]

Fair enough. Abdu'l-Baha was not infallible and he should not have been addressing scientific subjects because that was not within his purview. I believe he was wrong on more than those things. Baha'u'llah did not grant him authority to speak about science, only religion.

This is incorrect. Scientific knowledge in this preaching is as important as religious teachings and the two must be in harmony.
You are now resorting to apologetics but they do not match the stated theology of the religion. They are ad-hoc apologetics. The fact remains that he is supposed to produce new science through his revelations. The book on how to know a prophet is actually a messenger of God we reviewed in an older thread stated this as well.


"The harmony of science and religion is a central tenet of the Baháʼí teachings.[39] The principle states that that truth is one, and therefore true science and true religion must be in harmony, thus rejecting the view that science and religion are in conflict.[40] ʻAbdu'l-Bahá asserted that science without religion leads to materialism, and religion without science leads to superstition;[40] he also affirmed that reasoning powers are required to understand the truths of religion.[39] ʻAbdu'l-Bahá condemned civilizations based solely on materialistic beliefs which he said would bring about moral problems.[39]"

So his science was from God. But he was wrong often. So he was just a man claiming to be speaking for a God, it's obvious in the long winded flowery writings, but this confirms it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is incorrect. Scientific knowledge in this preaching is as important as religious teachings and the two must be in harmony.
You are now resorting to apologetics but they do not match the stated theology of the religion. They are ad-hoc apologetics. The fact remains that he is supposed to produce new science through his revelations. The book on how to know a prophet is actually a messenger of God we reviewed in an older thread stated this as well.


"The harmony of science and religion is a central tenet of the Baháʼí teachings.[39] The principle states that that truth is one, and therefore true science and true religion must be in harmony, thus rejecting the view that science and religion are in conflict.[40] ʻAbdu'l-Bahá asserted that science without religion leads to materialism, and religion without science leads to superstition;[40] he also affirmed that reasoning powers are required to understand the truths of religion.[39] ʻAbdu'l-Bahá condemned civilizations based solely on materialistic beliefs which he said would bring about moral problems.[39]"

So his science was from God. But he was wrong often. So he was just a man claiming to be speaking for a God, it's obvious in the long winded flowery writings, but this confirms it.

I can for me combine science and religion. The joke is that in practice we properly can't agree on the limits of science and what religion is.