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

[Daniel Nicholson]

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.

1. Do you formulate your beliefs based on evidence?
2. What evidence or kind of evidence would change your beliefs?

 

[Tiberius]

I never said it did.

Then why mention it?

The Christian sources are valid as evidence for the Christian Faith.

And I've got some comic books that are evidence for Superman.

I am not making any claims.

Oh, let's not do this. You come in here, you present a position, you defend that position against the people who claim it is wrong...

Whatever you call it, it's functionally identical to making a claim, and your "I'm just stating my belief, not making claims" way of avoiding having to be answerable for your claims is beyond tired.

No, it relies upon having looked at all the evidence you can find.

Doesn't sound that way to me.

I could if I wanted to, but I don’t want to waste my time looking at other people’s flaws.

You were talking about the flaws in arguments for atheism, not people.

Do you think that an argument for atheism is a person? Because an argument for anything is an argument, not a person.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't intend to spend time over it..
You will just dismiss it, anyway.
I know the truth. It is possible for an agent to know something apparently before us. Your objections are mere play on words,
or deceitful manipulations of infinity.

Talk of points in time assume that time is somehow absolute, while it is not.
Your sense of it not being possible to know of an event "before" it has happened
stems from this concept.
It is just that for an observer not in our frame of reference, it is possible that the series of events that we call the future have "already happened".

You just carry on with your nonsense, just as you do with your incompatibilist argument.

So you make vague claims, but refuse to actually support those claims.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So you make vague claims, but refuse to actually support those claims.

Same old .. "show us G-d"
In this case, show us how G-d precisely knows things before they happen.

It is enough for me to see that it is possible for an agent to see events of "fheir past" as "our future", due to the relativity of time.
..but not you .. you have to come up with invalid objections that apparently show this is not possible.
..such as citing the speed of light or talking about points in time,
which can never disprove the theory of simultaneity.

One mistake you make is in taking our frame of reference to be some kind of universal measure of time .. which it is not.

 

[Trailblazer]

1. Do you formulate your beliefs based on evidence?

Yes.

2. What evidence or kind of evidence would change your beliefs?

More evidence, new evidence, or different evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

And when you have looked at all the evidence you can find, you'll just know.
What will you 'just know', Tb?

What I now know.

 

[Trailblazer]

I never said that.

I never said that you did. Please note the question mark at the end of the sentence.

You are asking why it matters that you are honest with yourself? Really?

No, I am not asking that. I alone know if I am being honest with myself, and God also knows since God is all-knowing. Nobody else knows.

You're right. I exaggerated, and I apologize. Maybe better to say that your posts do not draw readers toward your faith.

How do you think you can know that? Are you a mind-reader? Are you the all-knowing God?

Ask yourself why they want to post to you, Tb. Could it be that they are trying to show you your many errors of logic and encourage you to think critically?

I don't ask because I don't need to know. If they want to tell me they will. Otherwise I don't think I can know because I am not the all-knowing God.

I don't care if they 'believe' they are showing me errors. What I am doing is showing them errors in their logic, all day long.

Maybe you should be asking yourself why YOU are posting to me and pointing out what I should be doing.

Don't measure yourself by the number of posts you receive. What is important is that you know more about why these posters want to talk to you.

Why is it important for me to know that?

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh, let's not do this. You come in here, you present a position, you defend that position against the people who claim it is wrong...

Whatever you call it, it's functionally identical to making a claim, and your "I'm just stating my belief, not making claims" way of avoiding having to be answerable for your claims is beyond tired.

I am not answerable to you or anyone else. I am only answerable to God.

Baha'u'llah made claims. All I do is believe His claims and answer people's questions about what He claimed if they ask.
I have nothing to claim since I am not a Messenger of God. I am just a believer who believes in the Messenger.

No, what is getting tired is you speaking for me as if you KNOW what I am doing. I won't tolerate that anymore.

If people want to post to me and get an answer from me they will have to speak for themselves and NOT speak for me and what they think I am doing. It is beyond rude.

 

[Tiberius]

Same old .. "show us G-d"
In this case, show us how G-d precisely knows things before they happen.

It is enough for me to see that it is possible for an agent to see events of "fheir past" as "our future", due to the relativity of time.
..but not you .. you have to come up with invalid objections that apparently show this is not possible.
..such as citing the speed of light or talking about points in time,
which can never disprove the theory of simultaneity.

One mistake you make is in taking our frame of reference to be some kind of universal measure of time .. which it is not.

Why do you think I am asking you to show me God?

You just said it was a being that was outside our frame of reference. Why do you suddenly think such a being could only be God?

 

[Tiberius]

I am not answerable to you or anyone else. I am only answerable to God.

Baha'u'llah made claims. All I do is believe His claims and answer people's questions about what He claimed if they ask.
I have nothing to claim since I am not a Messenger of God. I am just a believer who believes in the Messenger.

No, what is getting tired is you speaking for me as if you KNOW what I am doing. I won't tolerate that anymore.

If people want to post to me and get an answer from me they will have to speak for themselves and NOT speak for me and what they think I am doing. It is beyond rude.

And once again you run to the "I'm just stating my beliefs, not making any claims," excuse to avoid supporting your position.

 

[CG Didymus]

1. Do you formulate your beliefs based on evidence?
2. What evidence or kind of evidence would change your beliefs?

You've got some catching up to do. TB claims, or "believes", that there is evidence for God. That evidence is the messengers of God, the main and most important one is the latest one, Baha'u'llah... who claims to be the fulfillment of every Promised One of every major religion, not just the Christ. But he is not claiming he is Jesus the Christ. He is saying that he has come in the "Spirit" of Christ or the Christ Spirit.

TB has said that his person, who he is and his character, his mission, whatever that was, and his writings are "proof" of who he is, a messenger from God. And, since he is a messenger from God, and says that there is a God, therefore God is real. Or something like that. I'm sure TB will add or subtract or deny and say that I'm wrong, but that's what I got out of what she's been claiming. And again, I say "claiming", because she claims she is not "claiming" or "asserting" anything, but she "believes" Baha'u'llah is a true messenger from God.

The Atheists and a couple of others keep telling her that she is using logical fallacies, especially going in circles with... God is real, because Baha'u'llah says God is real. And Baha'u'llah is a messenger from God, so he should know. Anyway, 200+ pages later, and here you are with a great couple of questions.

So "yes" her beliefs are based on evidence, but "evidence" that Atheists keep telling her is not "objective" evidence.

The other question, though, what kind of evidence? True believers are hard to convince of anything. They seem to find ways to wiggle out of having to admit they are wrong. So, in the end, I think a true believer in a religion would be asking for the same kind of evidence that Atheists are asking for... objective evidence.

Anyway, again, great questions.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Yes.

More evidence, new evidence, or different evidence.

I'd be happy to direct you to that evidence, though I have a feeling you have already seen a lot of it.

Maybe you don't actually base your beliefs on evidence, which is fine but don't pretend otherwise.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

You've got some catching up to do. TB claims, or "believes", that there is evidence for God. That evidence is the messengers of God, the main and most important one is the latest one, Baha'u'llah... who claims to be the fulfillment of every Promised One of every major religion, not just the Christ. But he is not claiming he is Jesus the Christ. He is saying that he has come in the "Spirit" of Christ or the Christ Spirit.

TB has said that his person, who he is and his character, his mission, whatever that was, and his writings are "proof" of who he is, a messenger from God. And, since he is a messenger from God, and says that there is a God, therefore God is real. Or something like that. I'm sure TB will add or subtract or deny and say that I'm wrong, but that's what I got out of what she's been claiming. And again, I say "claiming", because she claims she is not "claiming" or "asserting" anything, but she "believes" Baha'u'llah is a true messenger from God.

The Atheists and a couple of others keep telling her that she is using logical fallacies, especially going in circles with... God is real, because Baha'u'llah says God is real. And Baha'u'llah is a messenger from God, so he should know. Anyway, 200+ pages later, and here you are with a great couple of questions.

So "yes" her beliefs are based on evidence, but "evidence" that Atheists keep telling her is not "objective" evidence.

The other question, though, what kind of evidence? True believers are hard to convince of anything. They seem to find ways to wiggle out of having to admit they are wrong. So, in the end, I think a true believer in a religion would be asking for the same kind of evidence that Atheists are asking for... objective evidence.

Anyway, again, great questions.

Thanks for catching me up.
Im a messenger from the future sent by H.U.M.A.N.I.S.T. to show TB the laser, that is, the scientific light.
I have knowledge and insight from the future, and I can definitively say there is not an omnipresent god.
TB, you can trust that this true because I say so, and other people say so too, and that is proof enough.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have knowledge and insight from the future, and I can definitively say there is not an omnipresent god..

..don't believe you.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'd be happy to direct you to that evidence, though I have a feeling you have already seen a lot of it.

Maybe you don't actually base your beliefs on evidence, which is fine but don't pretend otherwise.

I do base my beliefs upon evidence.
If you think you have some more evidence please feel free to present it.

 

[Sheldon]

It is enough for me to see that it is possible for an agent to see events of "fheir past" as "our future", due to the relativity of time.

You haven't demonstrated this is possible at all, you can believe the moon is made of cheese, if it makes you happy, but inserting a deity into relativity is pure unevidenced assumption. It is an assumption that also seems to have escaped Einstein, and the scientific world.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You haven't demonstrated this is possible at all..

All you are doing here is showing your ignorance..
Can you tell us why it is wrong?
Are you saying that I have to show that "G-d is watching us" ?
Tut .. is that the best you've got?

A physicist knows that what we deem to be the present is only relative to our frame of reference.

 

[Suave]

You haven't demonstrated this is possible at all, you can believe the moon is made of cheese, if it makes you happy, but inserting a deity into relativity is pure unevidenced assumption. It is an assumption that also seems to have escaped Einstein, and the scientific world.

In our simulated universe, the moon might very well have been created by the controller of simulations ( a.k.a. - God )

There is computer code embedded in string theory, this might be an indicator of our simulated universe, of which is controlled by a simulator ( a.k.a. - God )

Please note the discovery of error correcting codes within the equations of symmetry is a rigorously proven theorem.

Reference: https://www.quora.com/Is-theoretica...mmunity-and-has-it-been-corroborated-by-other

Is theoretical physicist James Gates’ intriguing discovery of error-correcting codes within the equations of supersymmetry accepted within the theoretical physicist community, and has it been corroborated by other physicists?

Tristan Hubsch
, PhD Physics, University of Maryland, College Park (1987)
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 1.4K answers and 1M answer views

A.: The discovery is a rigorously proven theorem.

To be precise, the (error-detecting and error-correcting binary doubly-even linear block) codes were discovered/identified within the classification of worldline off-shell supermultiplets without central charge [On Graph-Theoretic Identifications of Adinkras, Supersymmetry Representations and Superfields, by C.F. Doran, M.G. Faux, S.J. Gates, Jr., T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A22 (2007) 869-930, arXiv:math-ph/0512016]. It was then proven that these (minimal) supermultiplets in turn encode the continuum of all possible worldline supermultiplets [On General Off-Shell Representations of Worldline (1D) Supersymmetry, by C.F. Doran, T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Symmetry 6 no. 1, (2014) 67–88, arXiv:1310.3258]. See also my answer to “James Gates claims that he found code in string theory. Does that imply that we live in a simulation?”

 

[Sheldon]

All you are doing here is showing your ignorance.. Can you tell us why it is wrong?

I didn't claim it was wrong, so your ad hominem is pretty hilarious.

Are you saying that I have to show that "G-d is watching us" ?
Tut .. is that the best you've got?

Did I say that? You made a claim something is possible, you have repeated this claim several times, and each time I ask you to demonstrate something beyond the bare claim, each time you either don't understand what I have said, or perhaps you don't understand what you have said, but nary a shred of objective evidence is offered.

A physicist knows that what we deem to be the present is only relative to our frame of reference.

Cool, and this has what to do with your unevidenced claim that relativity means a deity can exists in an alternative time frame?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Cool, and this has what to do with your unevidenced claim that relativity means a deity can exists in an alternative time frame?

You keep saying this..
What are you talking about?
What do you think that I must show you?