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

[mikkel_the_dane]

Every human, apart from ascetics and hermits and the like. Is part of a web of overlapping social orders, from the family level to the city sphere, the national and supranational, in the case of EU citizens. Interaction is regulated by codes of conduct, social expectations and norms as well as more formally by codified law the product of legislation by democratic mandate etc. I am saying morality and ethics, are products of these socioeconomic and political necessities, to regulate the social order. Be it a small tribe of hunter gatherers in remote Brazilian rainforest or Galactic federations numbering thousands of systems, composed of several dozen highly advanced different alien species.

Yeah and yet they produce different variations.
So unless you can show that your variation is the correct one, I will still go with some form of moral relativism. Not that all moral codes are equally good, but that they are equal in being not strictly objective as not influenced by feelings.

 

[Trailblazer]

Article of faith based reasoning is not for everyone. Testable falsifiable evidence is the only objective way of proving something to be true. Should the theists offer any, I would look into it. The assertions of self proclaimed spokespeople for God, whether they be found in holy texts or spoken, are not going to cut it. The problem really. Is that the God hypothesis is untestable. There is no observation or experiment I can conduct that would prove or falsify the hypothesis. So. In the end, there is not only no testable evidence for Gods, there is no test that can be made.

You are correct. Testable falsifiable evidence is the only objective way of proving something to be true. God is not objective or testable so God can never be proven to exist.

You are correct. In the end, there is not only no testable evidence for Gods, so there is no test that can be made.

I believe that Messengers of God are the only evidence that God exists. We either recognize the evidence that demonstrates the truth of their claims or we do not recognize it. It is as simple as that.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Yeah and yet they produce different variations.
So unless you can show that your variation is the correct one, I will still go with some form of moral relativism. Not that all moral codes are equally good, but that they are equal in being not strictly objective as not influenced by feelings.

Morality and ethics are in my view, subjective. They vary depending on the external environment and the demands it places on the social order. In some societies, where food is often scarce, it is often rude or mildly morally reprehensible to leave your plate unfinished. In the USA or UK or other western nations, not so much. Social values, depend on external environmental pressures. Those are the drivers. As they drive evolutionary processes also.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Morality and ethics are in my view, subjective. They vary depending on the external environment and the demands it places on the social order. In some societies, where food is often scarce, it is often rude or mildly morally reprehensible to leave your plate unfinished. In the USA or UK or other western nations, not so much. Social values, depend on external environmental pressures. Those are the drivers. As they drive evolutionary processes also.

And technology and fundamental views about what humans are and what nature is.
The list is never just one factor.
It is several that are interlocked as far as I can tell.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because the things you keep positing as evidence, are just more claims.
And then you claim that you haven't made any claims.

I have made no claims.
Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims.
I have posted the evidence that supports His claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you know?

I know who the phonies were because I know who the true Messengers of God were.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

I believe that Messengers of God are the only evidence that God exists. We either recognize the evidence that demonstrates the truth of their claims or we do not recognize it. It is as simple as that.

Messengers of God?

 

[Trailblazer]

This is illogical.

Explain WHY it is illogical or don't assert it because it is a bald assertion unless you can back it up.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up. Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have made no claims.
Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims.
I have posted the evidence that supports His claims.

Yes and no. You use one standard and some of us use other standards.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know who the phonies were because I know who the true Messengers of God were.

But you can't actually demonstrate it to anyone.

I believe that you are the deluded one and your Messengers are phony. How do I know? Well, the magical invisible pixies told me. I can't demonstrate to you that they exist though. All I have are claims in a book.

How do we determine whose claims are true?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have made no claims.
Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims.
I have posted the evidence that supports His claims.

You've made a plethora of claims. Just saying "I have made no claims" doesn't make it so.
Baha'u'llah has made claims. You've also made claims. You've also claimed that Baha'u'llah's claims are true. That's a lot of claims.

Not only that, but you post Baha'u'llah's claims as truths, declaring that they are the evidence. Then when questioned about them you fall back onto the claim you've made in this post that you have made no claims. Claims aren't evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you can't actually demonstrate it to anyone.

Well, yes, she can if you accept her thinking. But you can also do it differently.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

And technology and fundamental views about what humans are and what nature is.
The list is never just one factor.
It is several that are interlocked as far as I can tell.

My simplistic thesis does not do justice to the noble fields of anthropology and sociology among others. However, I am suggesting, in basic premise, that all morality and ethical considerations, are naturalistic manifestations of social interaction, as the community or nation etc responds to environmental conditions and associated pressures, that are mutable. Including technological game changers and other external factors. Not to mention again, genomic expression of social traits like altruism. In the mix.

 

[Trailblazer]

But there is a false assumption.

Explain WHY there is a false assumption or do not assert it. Your assertion is a bald assertion unless you can back it up. It appears that the only reason you post anything to me if to take pot shots at what I say to other people, not to have a reasoned discussion.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up. Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My simplistic thesis does not do justice to the noble fields of anthropology and sociology among others. However, I am suggesting, in basic premise, that all morality and ethical considerations, are naturalistic manifestations of social interaction, as the community or nation etc responds to environmental conditions and associated pressures, that are mutable. Including technological game changers and other external factors.

Correct, that is the descriptive level but that is not the same as prescriptive.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, yes, she can if you accept her thinking. But you can also do it differently.

If I accept everything she says as true, then sure.
But I don't, because they haven't been shown to be true.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you can't actually demonstrate it to anyone.

It is not my job to demonstrate anything to anybody.
Why do atheists think that is my job?
If people want to know something they can do their own research.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Explain WHY there is a false assumption or do not assert it. Your assertion is a bald assertion unless you can back it up. It appears that the only reason you post anything to me if to take pot shots at what I say to other people, not to have a reasoned discussion.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up. Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

Your assumptions are as such neither false or true. They are relative, because they can be believed as either true or false. That is what is going on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not my job to demonstrate anything to anybody.
If people want to know something they can do their own research.

It is when you're in a debate forum making truth claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

You've made a plethora of claims

I have made no claims.