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

[Trailblazer]

Is there anything we can do that you believe a deity cannot prevent or stop us doign if it wanted to?

No.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then God was wrong, wasn't he?

No, God was not wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

It seems to me that you are using the special pleading fallacy - claiming that we can't use standard reason to apply to God because God is "different", yet there is no evidence for God apart from the non-standard reason you are claiming we need to use.

God is not a human so God is different from a human.

You are the one committing the special pleading fallacy, not me, because you claim we can use standard reason to apply to God, and that ignores an aspect of God that is unfavorable to your point of view since God is not a human.

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is not a human so God is different from a human.

You are the one committing the special pleading fallacy, not me, because you claim we can use standard reason to apply to God, and that ignores an aspect of God that is unfavorable to your point of view since God is not a human.

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

Sorry but that is a still a special pleading argument on your part. If the rules are different for God and change the results you still have to explain why the rules of logic are different for him. And "Because he is God" does not cut it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Trailblazer said: Yes.
Then God was wrong, wasn't he?

No. It is you that are wrong.

"If God knows I am going to wear the red shirt tomorrow, then I MUST wear the red shirt. I am not able to choose the blue shirt instead."

That's true.
..but so is this..

"If God knows I am going to wear the blue shirt tomorrow, then I MUST wear the blue shirt. I am not able to choose the red shirt instead."

..so which is it?
Do you choose the red shirt or the blue shirt?
Are you going to say that it depends on what God knows?
..because it doesn't..
It depends on what you CHOOSE.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not if we can only make the choice that god knows we will make.
It is not enough to simply assert "but we have free will". You need to explain how, if we can only make one particular choice, we have free will.

We can make any choice we want and carry it out if we have the capability and opportunity.

Free will is simply the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. How free they are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints such as capability and opportunity.

Who decides what is "moral" and "immoral", and on what basis?

God, on the basis that He created us so God knows what we were created for.

And being all-knowing means that what he knows is fixed - because he knows it. Otherwise things would happen that he did not know.
It really isn't rocket science.

It really isn't rocket science.
Things won't happen that God does not know will happen because God knows everything that will ever happen.

What God knows is not fixed as it changes whenever humans make a choice to do something.

Question.—If God has knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone, and it has been written on the Tablet of Fate, is it possible to resist it?

Answer.—The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization; for the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God... Some Answered Questions, pp. 138-139

 

[rational experiences]

Nope ! I am not a Calvinist.

However, I do believe that Almighty God knows what we perceive as the future. That is because Almighty God is not part of the universe [ space-time continuum ].

That means, in turn, that the future must be fixed .. is that correct?
Yes, it must be, as it means God knows what we all choose to do.

..so what fixes it? That would be us
It is no different from the past being fixed.
..and tomorrow will eventually become the past.
Do you understand? Many people don't, I find.

I think Einstein gets it.

Depends on what you mean as a human thinking when you use one word God.

If men of science explain what one word as GOD in science meant. Then lots of humans are misquoting their thesis.

I don't use the word G O D in explaining natural life human support and nature on earth.

I quote it as the loving light. As only a type of light allows me to life as healthily lived and supported. A human teaching about what live means.

As words are used as a meaning of explanation.

Yet the light is light and not love. Two words of one first meaning. Used in variable teachings.

I say eternal as the highest spiritual place that had originally released the GODS O bodies of mass.

So God in creation cannot be the eternal.

So you should not misquote a word.

Yet to teach using words we always misquoted first word meaning by causes. To teach.

So when reading said bible lots of inferred meanings are also taught.

No man is God was meant.
God is not the eternal
The eternal first word eternal is the only eternal.

A human is only ever just a human.

I was not invented created by another human thinking thesis the relative human teaching.

To think irrationally was to theory anti to your self holy presence.

As no human existed in any past

Then memory of humans would argue. Of course they did.

What about before first human ever?
Oh yes relative advice. No human before a human was correct.

Don't look back into the past was one hundred percent correct.

 

[Tiberius]

No, God was not wrong.

Lemme get this straight...

God knows 100% for sure that I will wear the red shirt.

I choose the wear the Blue shirt.

God's claim that I will wear the red shirt was NOT wrong?

 

[Tiberius]

God is not a human so God is different from a human.

You are the one committing the special pleading fallacy, not me, because you claim we can use standard reason to apply to God, and that ignores an aspect of God that is unfavorable to your point of view since God is not a human.

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

No, you are using the special pleading fallacy.

By your logic, I can invent any supernatural creature, claim that you need to use a special way of thinking that I just made up to learn anything about it, and also claim that regular reason won't do the job. And then I can claim that no one can prove me wrong! Any nonsense can be explained like that, but it isn't falsifiable. And if it's not falsifiable, then it's worthless.

 

[Tiberius]

No. It is you that are wrong.

"If God knows I am going to wear the red shirt tomorrow, then I MUST wear the red shirt. I am not able to choose the blue shirt instead."

That's true.
..but so is this..

"If God knows I am going to wear the blue shirt tomorrow, then I MUST wear the blue shirt. I am not able to choose the red shirt instead."

..so which is it?
Do you choose the red shirt or the blue shirt?
Are you going to say that it depends on what God knows?
..because it doesn't..
It depends on what you CHOOSE.

You miss the fact that once God KNOWS which one I will wear, then I can't do anything to alter it.

 

[rational experiences]

Theists normally think a theory first. Misquoting cosmic laws that they don't own nor use in machines designed by science as a human.

Built. Then controlled by your thinking.

Putting inside said machine creation created substances that natural cosmic laws actually owned.

Are you in fact trying to destroy natural cosmic law yourselves as just humans thinking about your human selves?

Relative human advice why did natural humans have to tell the human scientist he was our life destroyer?

 

[rational experiences]

No, you are using the special pleading fallacy.

By your logic, I can invent any supernatural creature, claim that you need to use a special way of thinking that I just made up to learn anything about it, and also claim that regular reason won't do the job. And then I can claim that no one can prove me wrong! Any nonsense can be explained like that, but it isn't falsifiable. And if it's not falsifiable, then it's worthless.

Two words taught by the human teacher.

Teacher status holy word user.

Natural. Status all laws first.
AI artificial a cause effect.
Science says I can artificially cause natural to change and the science law caused then an effect is witnessed.

Lying says natural did it.

Then argues natural did not do it to itself design by thinker human not any law cosmic did it.

Geez says science lucky to still be alive. Better stop lying before everything changes from natural into artificial as I am not owner of anything I conjure.

Alien thesis equals all things I quote equals the alien only first.

 

[Trailblazer]

At time T (the moment the choice is made) can he chose the blue shirt?
Obviously not, because that would mean god was wrong.
Therefore he does not have the ability to chose the blue shirt - even though he feels like he can. He might stand in from of the mirror for ten minutes thinking "red or blue, blue or red?" but blue is never an actual option. Therefore no free will to chose blue.

No, because if you chose the red shirt God would have known you were going to choose the red shirt.
What God knows does not interfere with anyone's ability to choose whatever they want to choose. This is SO illogical and that is the only reason I keep answering these posts. It is painfully illogical.

Yes he does, but removing the ability to chose blue.

God does not remove your ability to choose the blue shirt. You can choose red or blue and God will have known that is what you would choose.

That negates the whole concept of infallible omniscience!
What you are describing is god observing our actions as we make them - and I can do that!

God does not have to observe our actions as we make them because God already knows what actions we will take by virtue of His omniscience.

It causes that choice to be inevitable.

God knew we would make a certain choice because God is all-knowing, but God's knowledge is not what caused us to make a certain choice. We can choose whatever we want and God always knew what that choice would be.

Exactly. We can only do the things that god knows we will do, and if he knows everything then we have no free will over anything.

That is completely illogical because God's knowledge does not interfere with our free will to choose
God knows what we will choose by virtue of our free will, it is as simple as that.

Sorry, but it is clearly you who is unable to grasp a simple concept. It is understandable why - it's called "cognitive dissonance".

Sorry, but it is clearly you who is unable to grasp a simple concept. It is understandable why - it's called "cognitive dissonance".

 

[Trailblazer]

If a policeman knew that a criminal was going to murder someone, and stood by while they did it saying "but I didn't make him do it", he would still be sacked at least, and possibly prosecuted.

If god was a parent, social services would have taken us into care long ago.

God is not a human parent so God is not responsible to care for any humans.

That is the the fallacy of false equivalence because God is not a human and as such God does not have any of the responsibilities that a human has.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

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.

4.God exists in the heart , religion exists in the mind

God is real as love

 

[rational experiences]

Term human man expressed as just a human science.

To practice by observation. In presence of humans Man's choice. Man's belief. Group owned. Group taught. Indoctrinated false idealisms human.

Omniscience. Science. My con...science. human.

Says science is God. No observation thinking is being informed. Position first. First is holy.

Informed is natural first anywhere.

Laws own natural everywhere.

Man's science sought to break all laws himself artificially.

The man created built designed mind controlled the machine.

Man says human mind controlled the machine.

Man in anti belief today says machine owns mind control his owned proof he is lying.

 

[rational experiences]

4.God exists in the heart , religion exists in the mind

God is real as love

No.

O planet earth sciences is God. Reactive naturally O earth as one can kill you instantly anytime.
Gods heavens reactive destructive natural at any moment can kill you naturally.

First highest human advice rational science observed correct first advice one.

Human teaching says natural nurturing states is a proven support. Secondary advice only. Humans considered it as considerate humans as being supportive in its highest natural unions.

So we quote humans false preached science by chosen human groups. Bible is about false preaching.

Natural humans never argued about God they just lived until they died.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans today quoting science state O earths first laws on earth evidence....are all destructive in natural law.

What science is arguing about is first owned earth causes.

Humans are arguing about owning healthy natural human life.

Two different subjects not owned in the same argument relativity.

 

[Trailblazer]

Lemme get this straight...

God knows 100% for sure that I will wear the red shirt.

I choose the wear the Blue shirt.

God's claim that I will wear the red shirt was NOT wrong?

God knows 100% for sure that you will wear the red shirt but only if red is the color you will choose to wear.

If you had chosen to wear the blue shirt God would have known 100% for sure that you would wear the blue shirt.

God never claimed that you would wear a red shirt but God knew what color shirt you would wear, which would be the same color shirt that you chose to wear.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, you are using the special pleading fallacy.

By your logic, I can invent any supernatural creature, claim that you need to use a special way of thinking that I just made up to learn anything about it, and also claim that regular reason won't do the job. And then I can claim that no one can prove me wrong! Any nonsense can be explained like that, but it isn't falsifiable. And if it's not falsifiable, then it's worthless.

Who is using the special pleading fallacy is all a matter of perspective.