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

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible contains claims but the Bible is also the evidence that supports the claims. I don't care if it is circular reasoning, it is what it is. God is not going to give you what you want because God is not a short order cook.

God does not care what you want. God gives you what you need and when you reject it you are the only one who misses out. God does not need your belief because God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining.

No it isn't.
Otherwise, Harry Potter books are both the claim and the evidence for the existence of wizards.

And you don't care if it's circular reasoning. Wow.
Okay, well I care about believing in true things and not believing in false things and circular reasoning is not the way to get there.


If there's a God, and it doesn't care what I want, then I don't care what it wants.
Oh wait a minute, those were claims you've just made (again)!
-God does not care what you want - CLAIM
-God gives you what you need and when you reject it you are the only one who misses out - CLAIM
-God is not going to give you what you want because God is not a short order cook - CLAIM
-God does not need your belief because God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining - CLAIM

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are the one who does not know the difference. I won't be explaining it again, because it is clearly delineated in this post:

#1597 Trailblazer

The Bible contains claims but it is also the evidence that supports the claims.

The Writings of Baha'u'llah contain claims but there is outside evidence that support those claims and that is why the Baha'i Faith has better evidence than Christianity to support the claims of Baha'u'llah.

Any critical thinker could figure this out.

If you think the Bible contains both the claims and the evidence for those claims, then you are the one who does not know what evidence is. Sorry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I wouldn't. That is why I said "A Muslim source would not be reliable because Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last and final Prophet."

And for the same reason a Baha'i source would not be reliable. People are too willing to drink the Kool-Aid when it comes to their own beliefs.

Now were some of the claims about Baha that were made true? Yes. But some seem to be a bit sketchy. For example he did spend a fair amount of time in prison for his beliefs. That does indicate that he believed what he preached. It is not evidence that he is right, but it does indicate that there may have been an attempt to slur Baha a bit in that post. At the same time that he appeared to have started a small dynasty with his family is very problematical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you think the Bible contains both the claims and the evidence for those claims, then you are the one who does not know what evidence is. Sorry.

The problem is that Baha'i, like a lot of other religions, is somewhat of a smorgasbord religion. Almost every religion does this. The ancient Hebrews appear to have adopted beliefs from the Babylonians (Noah's Flood anyone?). Christianity has evidence that it was affected by other similar myths. And the Baha'i accept that there were "Messengers of God" from other religions. So they tend those sources as "evidence" when they are only claims.

And forget Harry Potter. I am starting a new religion and Jake is the patron saint.. And Elwood is his "Aaron":

 

[Trailblazer]

How true. What was weird was how she supported the writer of the gospel of Matthew for taking Isaiah 7:14 out of context. Then she included verses 15 and 16 to be about Jesus too? No explanation, no reasoning, she just can't be wrong. Because the Baha'i Faith says Jesus was born of a virgin, so it must be true... no matter what anybody thinks or says. And once she's said something, that's it... It's settled. And she expects the subject to be dropped.

You do not know what I expect because you are not me. Talk about it all you want to others but I consider it a complete waste of time for me to talk about it over and over and over and over again. It has been discussed so there is nothing more for me to say since I have nothing more to say about it. That does not equate to "And once she's said something, that's it..." These personal criticisms are very disrespectful, especially since I am the only Baha'i who has consistently answered all your posts for four years.

What is going on here is that you do not LIKE what Baha'is believe about the virgin birth and so you do not LIKE that we believe that Isaiah 7:14 is about Jesus. That's too bad but why pick on the Bahais? You well know that Christians also believe in the virgin birth and they believe that verse is about Jesus.

This is not about ME being wrong, it is about the Baha'i Faith being wrong. Why do you keep making this personal?

If you don't believe in the Baha'i Faith you don't believe in it. Nobody is twisting your arm to believe in it but you have no right to tell other people what they 'should believe' about the virgin birth or anything else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is not about ME being wrong, it is about the Baha'i Faith being wrong. Why do you make it about ME?
The threads go on endlessly because OTHER PEOPLE think the Baha'i Faith is not true.

I could not care less what other people believe about the Baha'i Faith. I am sick of talking about it. The only reason I talk about it is out of a sense of duty.

Because you are the one making claims. Please note, no one has said that your faulty reasoning means that the Baha'i faith is wrong. I have not seen anyone say that.

By the way, I do think that the Baha'i faith is wrong. But it is less wrong than other faiths. It still has some very serious problems with its morality, but it is miles ahead of any other Abrahamic faith when it comes to morals.

 

[Trailblazer]

Now were some of the claims about Baha that were made true? Yes. But some seem to be a bit sketchy. For example he did spend a fair amount of time in prison for his beliefs. That does indicate that he believed what he preached. It is not evidence that he is right, but it does indicate that there may have been an attempt to slur Baha a bit in that post. At the same time that he appeared to have started a small dynasty with his family is very problematical.

If people want to know about any of this they need to investigate it for themselves as Baha'u'llah enjoined everyone to do.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

 

[Trailblazer]

Because you are the one making claims.

I make no claims, I only state my beliefs. I do not claim they are true, I only say I believe they are true. I cannot claim they are true since they cannot be proven as facts.

 

[Sheldon]

I have made no claims, I have only stated my beliefs.

Beliefs are the affirmation of claims. When we publicly and emphatically state a belief we hold, we are making a claim.

I have no burden of proof because I am not trying to prove anything.

The burden of proof is an expression, I don't think it refers in every case literally to proofs, as these are generally used in mathematics and logic.

Atheists have the BURDEN to do their own research if they want to know the truth about God.

How can one uncover truth about a deity if one doesn't believe they exist?

Obviously they don't because they don't want to lift a finger. They expect believers prove things to them so they won't have to DO anything. I consider that lazy.

Well not apropos to any specific posts or threads, but the variations of beliefs among theist is vast, and one could not hope to understand it all in a single lifetime, so when atheists ask theists to define their deity or beliefs about it, that seems reasonable. I've had theists claim they were christians ofr example, then berate me for making assumptions about their beliefs, even though they were based on core doctrinal beliefs most mainstream christians would hold.

We're kind of damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

...and yes that was a lame attempt at humour.

 

[Trailblazer]

No it isn't.
Otherwise, Harry Potter books are both the claim and the evidence for the existence of wizards.

There are claims in the Bible but the Bible is also evidence that the claims are true. It is too bad that is the only evidence Christians have but THAT is not my problem because I am not a Christian.

Using the Bible as evidence would be like me using the Writings of Baha'u'llah as evidence. The scriptures are part of the evidence but we need more than that and Baha'is have more than that. Sadly, Christians have ONLY that.

And you don't care if it's circular reasoning. Wow.
Okay, well I care about believing in true things and not believing in false things and circular reasoning is not the way to get there.

I am not a Christian so I do not rely upon the Bible for my beliefs. That is WHY I do not care if it is circular reasoning. Besides that, circular reasoning does not mean that the Bible is not true and the God does not exist.

Circular arguments are perfectly valid

18th August 2017 by Tim van der Zee

You have likely heard the claim that circular arguments are wrong or incoherent. In this short post I will outline why this is not the case. Circular arguments are perfectly fine; in fact, they can be quite convincing!

Let’s start with perhaps the most famous bad example of a circular argument:

God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God exists.

It is clear that this is circular, as each statement depends on the other to be true. It’s also a bad argument from a logical standpoint, as logical arguments tend to be formulated in “if A than B”, and this formulation is missing here. This emphasizes the other weak aspect of this argumentation: both claims have a rather low prior probability.

Let’s see what happens when we rephrase the above argument to the following:

If the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.

While both claims still have the same very low probability, it is now a more coherent – albeit circular – line of reasoning. Is there anything wrong with these arguments because they are circular? No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.

http://www.timvanderzee.com/circular-arguments/

I make no claims, I only have beliefs.

-God does not care what you want - BELIEF
-God gives you what you need and when you reject it you are the only one who misses out - BELIEF
-God is not going to give you what you want because God is not a short order cook - BELIEF
-God does not need your belief because God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining - BELIEF

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are claims in the Bible but the Bible is also evidence that the claims are true. It is too bad that is the only evidence Christians have but THAT is not my problem because I am not a Christian.

You've said that already, several times. It doesn't become true the more times you say it.

Using the Bible as evidence would be like me using the Writings of Baha'u'llah as evidence. The scriptures are part of the evidence but we need more than that and Baha'is have more than that. Sadly, Christians have ONLY that.

I am not a Christian so I do not rely upon the Bible for my beliefs. That is WHY I do not care if it is circular reasoning. Besides that, circular reasoning does not mean that the Bible is not true and the God does not exist.

If you don't care about the Bible, then it's rather odd that you brought it up.

Circular arguments are perfectly valid

18th August 2017 by Tim van der Zee

You have likely heard the claim that circular arguments are wrong or incoherent. In this short post I will outline why this is not the case. Circular arguments are perfectly fine; in fact, they can be quite convincing!

Let’s start with perhaps the most famous bad example of a circular argument:

God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God exists.

It is clear that this is circular, as each statement depends on the other to be true. It’s also a bad argument from a logical standpoint, as logical arguments tend to be formulated in “if A than B”, and this formulation is missing here. This emphasizes the other weak aspect of this argumentation: both claims have a rather low prior probability.

Let’s see what happens when we rephrase the above argument to the following:

If the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.

While both claims still have the same very low probability, it is now a more coherent – albeit circular – line of reasoning. Is there anything wrong with these arguments because they are circular? No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.

http://www.timvanderzee.com/circular-arguments/

More repetition. Other posters have addressed this, ad nauseam.

I make no claims, I only have beliefs.

-God does not care what you want - BELIEF
-God gives you what you need and when you reject it you are the only one who misses out - BELIEF
-God is not going to give you what you want because God is not a short order cook - BELIEF
-God does not need your belief because God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining - BELIEF

Call them whatever you want. They're claims, not in evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Beliefs are the affirmation of claims. When we publicly and emphatically state a belief we hold, we are making a claim.

I am only making a claim if I am claiming that what I believe is true. I am not making a claim if I say "I believe it is true." A belief is not a claim. I cannot honestly claim my belief is true because I cannot prove it as a fact.

How can one uncover truth about a deity if one doesn't believe they exist?

By looking at the only source of information about deities, which is in scriptures.

Well not apropos to any specific posts or threads, but the variations of beliefs among theist is vast, and one could not hope to understand it all in a single lifetime.

Imo, there is no need to understand the older religions because they were not revealed by God for this age in history, they were revealed for past ages that are now long gone. I believe (not claim) that the Baha'i Faith is the religion for this age, so to me it makes sense to look at the Baha'i Faith in order to determine if it is true or false.

We're kind of damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

...and yes that was a lame attempt at humour.

That is truer than you might realize...

 

[Sheldon]

the Bible is also evidence that the claims are true.

Could you cite some facts or information in the bible that support any of it's claims a deity exists?

Circular arguments are perfectly valid

Actually no they're not, they're a known fallacy in informal logic.

Circular arguments are perfectly fine; in fact, they can be quite convincing!

If the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.

While both claims still have the same very low probability, it is now a more coherent – albeit circular – line of reasoning. Is there anything wrong with these arguments because they are circular?

Yes, circular reasoning is a known logical fallacy, so they are by irrational by definition, as it is a basic principle of logic that nothing can be asserted as rational, if it contains a known logical fallacy.

Circular reasoning fallacy.

I make no claims, I only have beliefs.

Sorry but as i said above, beliefs are the affirmation of a claim.

-God does not care what you want - BELIEF
-God gives you what you need and when you reject it you are the only one who misses out - BELIEF
-God is not going to give you what you want because God is not a short order cook - BELIEF
-God does not need your belief because God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining - BELIEF

Those are all claims, you may believe them, but they are still claims.

Claim
verb

1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

noun

1. an assertion that something is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you think the Bible contains both the claims and the evidence for those claims, then you are the one who does not know what evidence is. Sorry.

If you believe that the Bible is just a book of claims then the Bible is not evidence but if the Bible is God's testimony as I believe, the Bible is evidence. It might not be enough evidence in order to believe in God, but it is evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If people want to know about any of this they need to investigate it for themselves as Baha'u'llah enjoined everyone to do.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

That is fine. But one should try to avoid potentially biased sources. You can see why Muslim sources would not be good. For the exact same reason one has to be fair and avoid Baha'i sources.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you believe that the Bible is just a book of claims then the Bible is not evidence but if the Bible is God's testimony as I believe, the Bible is evidence. It might not be enough evidence in order to believe in God, but it is evidence.

Yes, it is subjective evidence to you. But not to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I make no claims, I only state my beliefs. I do not claim they are true, I only say I believe they are true. I cannot claim they are true since they cannot be proven as facts.

And yet your claims are regularly quoted. If you are stating your beliefs you would need a qualifier. It may get tiresome, but it should be much more preferable to being corrected all of the time.

If you said "I believe . . . . " you will not get harassed or corrected. Or at least not nearly as much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you believe that the Bible is just a book of claims then the Bible is not evidence but if the Bible is God's testimony as I believe, the Bible is evidence. It might not be enough evidence in order to believe in God, but it is evidence.

Yes, it fails at being reliable evidence. "Well I am convinced" does not make something reliable. It is whether it is generally convincing. And some people will never be convinced no matter what the evidence is. If you ever saw the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye creationism debate you can see the exact moment when Ham lost the debate. They were each asked the same question "What would convince you that you were wrong". Bill had the right answer. He stated "evidence" and he clearly meant reliable evidence outside of the Bible since the Bible is the claim and not the evidence. Ham said that no evidence would convince him that he was wrong. At that point he lost because he openly admitted that he was not and could not reason rationally.

Since the holy books are the claims for reliable, noncircular, evidence we need to go outside of them.

 

[CG Didymus]

Dream on.

From Revelation...

Rev 11:1 “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.​

When did this trampling by the Gentiles start?

3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.”​

When did they start prophesying?

7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days...
​

When did they finish their testimony? Because that is when they are killed and their bodies lie in the square for three and a half days?

Rev 12:1 (A) woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head... 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads... The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.
​

Who was this son and when was he born? Because his mother flees to the wilderness after he is born.

Rev 13:1 I saw a beast coming out of the sea... 5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months.
​

Who is this beast and when was he given authority?

I think Baha'is make all these things start in 621AD with the Hegira, and end in 1844 with the declaration of The Bab. Now does that really make any sense? The trampling started at the same time the two witnesses started prophesying? Then they finish their testimony and are killed and lie in the street and that also started in 621AD and ended in 1844? Then after the woman gives birth, then she flees. And that too started in 621AD and ended in 1844? Then, after all that happened, a beast comes out of the sea, and he was given authority in 621AD until 1844? And who's dreaming?

Some Answered Questions... In the beginning of the seventh century after Christ, when Jerusalem was conquered, the Holy of Holies was outwardly preserved—that is to say, the house which Solomon built; but outside the Holy of Holies the outer court was taken and given to the Gentiles. “And the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months”—that is to say, the Gentiles shall govern and control Jerusalem forty and two months, signifying twelve hundred and sixty days; and as each day signifies a year, by this reckoning it becomes twelve hundred and sixty years, which is the duration of the cycle of the Qur’án...

This prophesies the duration of the Dispensation of Islám when Jerusalem was trodden under foot, which means that it lost its glory—but the Holy of Holies was preserved, guarded and respected—until the year 1260. This twelve hundred and sixty years is a prophecy of the manifestation of the Báb, the “Gate” of Bahá’u’lláh, which took place in the year 1260 of the Hejira of Muḥammad...
​

But Islam didn't conquer Jerusalem in 621AD.

The siege of Jerusalem (636–637) was part of the Muslim conquest of the Levant ​

First off, Jerusalem was already out of the controls of the Jews. Second, Islam didn't take over control in 621AD but after 636AD. So add your 1260 lunar years to that and it's not 1844. So a big "F" to Abdul Baha. But, since he has inherited infallibility from his father, then whatever he says is true? Of course it is.

​

 

[Sheldon]

I am only making a claim if I am claiming that what I believe is true.

All beliefs are accepted as true, it is in the definition.

I am not making a claim if I say "I believe it is true."

That contradicts your previous assertion above.

A belief is not a claim.

Yes, all beliefs are the affirmation of claims. they are an acceptance that something is true.

I cannot honestly claim my belief is true because I cannot prove it as a fact.

Belief (definition)

Believe (definition)

If you do not accept it is true, then by definition you do not believe it, the definition of belief means accepting something is true.

When we state a belief publicly, we are making a claim. It is a contradiction to suggest one holds beliefs we know to be untrue. Not all beliefs are supported by evidence of course, and again this is in the definition of the word. Nonetheless they are defined as accepting something to be true.

By looking at the only source of information about deities, which is in scriptures.

As an atheist I don't believe those claims about a deity, as they are not supported by any objective evidence, and the bible's claims cannot be cited as evidence for those claims. perhaps you could cite a single example of evidence for a deity you think is in the bible?

I believe (not claim) that the Baha'i Faith is the religion for this age, so to me it makes sense to look at the Baha'i Faith in order to determine if it is true or false.

By saying you believe it, you are saying you accept it is true, thus this is a claim that it is true.

That is truer than you might realize...

I don't believe in any afterlife, again this is because there is no objective evidence to support the idea, and of course it strikes me as an unfalsifiable concept, so while I must remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable concepts, I also disbelieve them.