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

[F1fan]

I think brother you are misunderstanding the whole thing. Atheists are not stupid or illogical or immoral or anything like that by default. That’s bigotry.

The missionary atheists are illogical in their arguments in this topic of God. That’s the point. That’s a specific statement, not a general dismissal.

Do you understand the difference?

Give us some examples of these illogical arguments. I asked before and you ignored my request.

 

[F1fan]

I know all that but I consider it unreasonable for them to expect be able to verify God by physical means.

Then how do ordinary mortals think it reasonable to believe in any number of many gods?

It does not matter if our evidence does not count as evidence for an atheist, that does not change the fact that they won't be getting the kind of evidence that they want.

Your evidence for your God doesn't even matter with other theists, and vise versa. So it's not just atheists, it's any other competing idea of a God or gods. This is what tells us it is cultural. You would believe in your version of God without there being an established ideology. You just happened to pick the option for the religion buffet that looked tasty to you.

 

[Koldo]

well, if we are being honest, we will have to admit that we can't rule out a great many things, especially the existence of God. We can determine probabilities, but they are going to be based on our very limited knowledge and experience: basically a bias.

So it seems to me that it's foolish to "believe in" our own theories, regardless, and wise to remain both open to, but skeptical of any and all possibilities.

Why are you using the quotation marks in "believe in"?
Why is it foolish to "believe in" our own theories?

 

[F1fan]

Okay. So you’re saying god would be able to appear for atheists to see.

That’s a logical impossibility. Because the topic is metaphysical and the request is physical. Gods ability is not the topic. Do you understand the nature of logic in it?

That would directly contradict what Christians think happened with Mary being made pregnant by God. If God can manipulate the physical directly in this case then it CAN manifest in the physical.

 

[PureX]

Then if we are classifying based on common belief then it would invalidate any number of possible options. There could be thousands of options, if parsed enough. This whole exercise is difficult since "god" isn't defined at all. Heck even fervent believers in God have no idea what it is they believe in.

This is the key point that so often gets overlooked. Such that the debate ends up being about the imaginary mental pictures people generate in their mind to represent God, as opposed to addressing the great mystery of being that God actually is to humanity.

 

[PureX]

Why are you using the quotation marks in "believe in"?
Why is it foolish to "believe in" our own theories?

Because they are only theories. To "believe in" them basically just means that we are presuming them not to be theories, but to be fact. Show me a 'true believer' (theist or atheist) and I'll show you someone who is deceiving themselves.

 

[F1fan]

Clearly, I would still be dreaming. Or so I would have to presume.

The problem with "proof of God" is that no human can rule out the possible alternative explanations. Just as no human can rule out the existence of God as the explanation. In the end, it's a matter of choice, and of faith, REGARDLESS OF WHAT CHOICE YOU MAKE (even atheism).

This exemption can apply to pixies or invisible elves working in another dimension. The thing is these back of the shelf ideas have no utility and aren't seriously considered. Ideas of God these days is exclusive to personal meaning and tribal affiliation, which soothes the natural anxiety that resulted from our evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Miracles would demonstrate God and be a proof for him and his power - as well that the performer of them is trusted by God.

You might want to learn the difference between evidence and proof. At best they would be evidence for a god. They would not qualify as proof on their own.

And what miracles? I do not know of any reliable observations of miracles.

 

[F1fan]

This is the key point that so often gets overlooked. Such that the debate ends up being about the imaginary mental pictures people generate in their mind to represent God, as opposed to addressing the great mystery of being that God actually is to humanity.

I think it's important for all humans to question why they think a God exists at all. This question will be very uncomfortable, and I suspect the vast majority would prefer to avoid this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it's important for all humans to question why they think a God exists at all. This question will be very uncomfortable, and I suspect the vast majority would prefer to avoid this.

It is a question that most cannot ask honestly much less ask honestly. The most common answer I get when specifically asking someone how they test their beliefs is that "You are trying to disprove God" when I have only asked them how they test their personal beliefs.

 

[F1fan]

You might want to learn the difference between evidence and proof. At best they would be evidence for a god. They would not qualify as proof on their own.

And what miracles? I do not know of any reliable observations of miracles.

I'm reading through this thread from all the overnight activity (is everyone living in Japan?) I'm not seeing any objective arguments for God via facts. I'm seeing testimonies of personal belief. Believers still don't realize this is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with atheists since theists of other stripes don't believe as they do.

 

[F1fan]

It is a question that most cannot ask honestly much less ask honestly. The most common answer I get when specifically asking someone how they test their beliefs is that "You are trying to disprove God" when I have only asked them how they test their personal beliefs.

It is totally consistent with how humans of any arbitrary culture end up believing in their cultural religion. It is conditioned from their youth and religious belief essentially becomes their brain's operating system. No one sits down with a tabula rasa brain and ponders God at 27, when the human brain is finally finished developing. No. Children are told God exists and they end up adopting these beliefs into adulthood. And without the skill of reason they have no tools to assess and reject these beliefs. There is strong biological and cultural and emotional motives that pressure a believe to believe, and not even want to question it.

 

[Link]

You might want to learn the difference between evidence and proof. At best they would be evidence for a god. They would not qualify as proof on their own.

And what miracles? I do not know of any reliable observations of miracles.

Sure, you would need some reasoning a long with it, but with that reasoning they are sufficient to indicating God exists.

 

[Koldo]

Because they are only theories. To "believe in" them basically just means that we are presuming them not to be theories, but to be fact. Show me a 'true believer' (theist or atheist) and I'll show you someone who is deceiving themselves.

But there is nothing wrong with presuming something to be a fact. This is distinct from thinking that we couldn't be wrong about our assessment, as if whatever we regard as a fact must be a fact.

 

[Koldo]

Past Guides can't be accessed in person. A current guide can be. A current guide can perform miracles, those miracles prove a power vested in him from God that also proves God exists and realizing the magical nature of guide, you can that move on to witness his light reality/sky reality, and then connect to the guides of the past as well which are lights in the sky (Ahlulbayt) in this world.

Now, you will say, where is this current guide? Good question, we are living in hard times, in which the leader and guide is not in public. But if you believe miracles are evidence and part of the path to be guided and attain certainty, and promise you won't accuse the guide of being an evil sorcerer or one possessed/deceived by demons giving him such power than I will suggest praying the following with belief God CAN respond IF he exists.

I'm not asking you to believe in God or his Guide before the miracles, just, pray to God in a way that if he exists, he would respond and guide you with a promise that you will accept miracles.

The Quran says "And the disbelievers say why a sign not revealed regarding him, you are only a warner and for every people, there is a guide!" (13:7)

A believer when he prays...

"Guide us the straight path" (1:6) believing what Quran has described about the Masters of the path and the Guides of it, will be guided to the Guides eventually.

It's only those who take all the Quran talks about including miracles playfully never preparing their souls to accept miracles and never reflecting over the issue of sorcery vs miracles and power from God discussion in Quran and reciting Quran heedlessly, that God out of his compassion, knowing their souls are corrupt and would not benefit from the signs, that would be deprived of reciters of Quran from miracles by the hand of the Guide.

No doubt, if you understand what Quran has described as a proof for himself, and the many reality of that proof and guide, even without believing in God and guide, you can see if God exists, this would be the best way to guide his creation and an absolute proof of himself and guidance.

In this case, just pray to God whether you know he exists or not, this is all God wants, humbleness and a promise not to reject his proofs when they are proven but rather be reasonable and humble to them.

Honestly, I would automatically assume the falsehood of a miracle performed by a guide. It would have to be something truly remarkable. There is a reason for this: there are some incredible magicians in the world. They can perform magic tricks that I truly can't explain. How would I be able to tell apart an awesole magician from a legitimate guide performing an actual miracle? I just can't! It would have to be utterly extraordinary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then if we are classifying based on common belief then it would invalidate any number of possible options. There could be thousands of options, if parsed enough. This whole exercise is difficult since "god" isn't defined at all. Heck even fervent believers in God have no idea what it is they believe in.

I don't think we can give a single definition for "god" that encompass every god, but we can define "god" in terms of an explicit list of gods (and things that are definitively not gods): Yahweh is a god; the universe (without some sort of consciousness or intelligence) isn't. Thor is a god; the Incredible Hulk isn't. Divine messenger Mercury is a god; divine messenger Gabriel isn't... that sort of thing.

... though this approach still supports the idea that anything out beyond the ken of humanity can't be a god: anything we don't know about isn't on the list.

 

[F1fan]

So you believe that God's will hasn't come to pass yet?

Almost as if a God doesn't exist and commonly imagined.

What do you think was powerful enough to thwart God's will?

The pesky skeptic's mind. Damn them.

 

[Link]

Honestly, I would automatically assume the falsehood of a miracle performed by a guide. It would have to be something truly remarkable. There is a reason for this: there are some incredible magicians in the world. They can perform magic tricks that I truly can't explain. How would I be able to tell apart an awesole magician from a legitimate guide performing an actual miracle? I just can't! It would have to be utterly extraordinary.

It would be something that clearly can't be either works of illusionists (magicians) or sorcerers or Jinn, but something God would only trust his trustees with and be of immense power that indicates it's from God and proves God as well.

 

[F1fan]

I don't think we can give a single definition for "god" that encompass every god, but we can define "god" in terms of an explicit list of gods (and things that are definitively not gods): Yahweh is a god; the universe (without some sort of consciousness or intelligence) isn't. Thor is a god; the Incredible Hulk isn't. Divine messenger Mercury is a god; divine messenger Gabriel isn't... that sort of thing.

... though this approach still supports the idea that anything out beyond the ken of humanity can't be a god: anything we don't know about isn't on the list.

The dilemma with these kinds of debates is how fast it goes off the rails. It's nailing jello to the wall. It's not easy to have general limits because so many different options of gods are available for consumption.

 

[F1fan]

It would be something that clearly can't be either works of illusionists (magicians) or sorcerers or Jinn, but something God would only trust his trustees with and be of immense power that indicates it's from God and proves God as well.

Not objectively. Your views still require a person to assume your version of God exists.