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

[Sheldon]

You can alter your choice right up until the time that you choose the shirt and put it on and wear it.
What God knows you will choose does not affect your choice in any way.
God knows which shirt you will choose to wear because God is all-knowing.

Preposterous nonsense sorry...if which choice I am going to make is known before hand, then I am not making a choice.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is your claim .. I don't accept it.

And his claim is completely illogical and irrational, because an omnipotent God can allow anything He wants to allow and what God knows does not constrain free will in any way. Case closed.

 

[Sheldon]

You think that Darwin's evolution theory is scientific fact ? That is simply not true ,

Species evolution is a scientific fact, as are the core ideas contained in all accepted scientific theories, if you now claim it is just a theory then I'm afraid we're done. As I have found it is a waste of time to converse with anyone that ignorant of basic scientific terms and methodology, yet who is prepared to make sweeping denials in favour of archaic superstitious creation myths, that are unsupported by any evidence, have no explanatory powers whatsoever, and appeal to inexplicable and unfalsifiable magic.

Darwin presented a good theory but didn't supply any real evidence

That is errant nonsense, when Darwin published his seminal work the evidence was already overwhelming, and all the evidence from over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny since supports species evolution through natural selection, and from multiple field of science.

The entirety of medical research is predicated on the fact of shared ancestry and species evolution.

Overwhelming evidence of r evolution, and debunking of creationist lies and propaganda <HERE>

The fact is the history before present conceptions is only viable if there is an observer too record that history .

Utter nonsense.

 

[Trailblazer]

Preposterous nonsense sorry...if which choice I am going to make is known before hand, then I am not making a choice.

That statement was completely illogical, because what you choose to do is not constrained by what God knows.

Read this and try to understand what it means.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

 

[Sheldon]

The difference is that in a possible infinite Universe there is infinite possibilities . The Unicorn might be real for all you know , a horse with a spike isn't that vivid of imagination .

All you've done is make another string of unevidenced assertions. Theists do this a lot, but an unevidenced assertion cannot be propped up with more unevidenced assertions.

The Unicorn might be real for all you know ,

Care to evidence that assertion?

 

[Sheldon]

That statement was completely illogical, because what you choose to do is not constrained by what God knows.

Unevidenced assertion, and so it is also a begging the question fallacy.

Read this and try to understand what it means.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

No sorry, it's a meaningless platitude, what are you claiming this says, and what objective evidence can you demsonrate for its assertions? You can't simply insist I accept what a text says, just because you have chosen to believe unevidenced assertion about its origins being attributed to a divine origin.

 

[Sheldon]

And his claim is completely illogical and irrational, because an omnipotent God can allow anything He wants to allow and what God knows does not constrain free will in any way. Case closed.

Something is irrational if it violates a principle of logic, and since you are the one using a special pleading fallacy here then it is your claim that is demonstrably irrational. You can't claim to be adhering to logic, then insist your arguments are not bound by logic, by making unevidenced assumptions about your unevidenced deity.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

It is a scientific fact, as are all accepted scientific theories, if you now claim it is just a theory then I'm afraid we're done. As I have found it is a waste of time to converse with anyone that ignorant of basic scientific terms and methodology, yet who is prepared to make sweeping denials in favour of archaic superstitious creation myths, that are unsupported by any evidence, have no explanatory powers whatsoever, and appeal to inexplicable and unfalsifiable magic.



That is errant nonsense, when Darwin published his seminal work the evidence was already overwhelming, and all the evidence from over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny since supports species evolution through natural selection, and from multiple field of science.

The entirety of medical research is predicated on the fact of shared ancestry and species evolution.

Overwhelming evidence of r evolution, and debunking of creationist lies and propaganda <HERE>



Utter nonsense.

One must protest at your utter ignorance and stereotypical attitude on science . It is a fact that not all scientific theories are fact . Theories are accepted explanations of a process by the majority but not every theory is set in stone .
The Big Bang theory for example , was in fact sciences admittance of defeat to religion . The fact is science cannot disprove the theory of God !

 

[Sheldon]

And his claim is completely illogical and irrational, because an omnipotent God can allow anything He wants to allow and what God knows does not constrain free will in any way. Case closed.

Closed minded more like, unevidenced assertions and assumptions used with logical fallacies are not compelling argument.

It is an obvious logical contradiction to claim my choice is "known" beforehand, and that I still have a choice. You can't claim to be making a rational argument, then claim your assumptions about a deity are not bound by logic, as has been explained you are using a special pleading fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

One must protest at your utter ignorance and stereotypical attitude on science . It is a fact that not all scientific theories are fact . Theories are accepted explanations of a process by the majority but not every theory is set in stone .
The Big Bang theory for example , was in fact sciences admittance of defeat to religion .

Oh dear,

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works.

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. Some theories are so well-established that they are unlikely ever to be fundamentally changed (for example, scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics, germ theory of disease, etc.)."

The fact is science cannot disprove the theory of God !

There is no theory of god, it's an unevidenced religious belief. That's also an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and concepts of deities are generally unfalsifiable, so they are unscientific as are all unfalsifiable concepts of course, as falsifiability is a basic requirement of the scientific method.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Oh dear,




There is no theory of god, it's an unevidenced religious belief. That's also an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and concepts of deities are generally unfalsifiable, so they are unscientific as are all unfalsifiable concepts of course, as falsifiability is a basic requirement of the scientific method.

You are incorrect , all religion was originally thoughts on science and how the universe was created . The answer they came up with was God , a theory of a creator that is accepted by many . Modern Sciences answer was the Big Bang theory that was accepted by many although it is incomplete . Science ''lost'' to religion , because science no matter how hard they try cannot create something from nothing , they had to start creation from a high dense state , no explanation of the formation of this state .
Science is quite clearly at a loss for an answer of everything , which gives God more reality in existence than sciences reality .

 

[Trailblazer]

Not so fast!
If people claim that we get our morality from god, then there is a clear equivalence on moral issues.

Or are you claiming that god's moral framework do not apply to him?
And if you are, why should they apply to us?

Yes, I am claiming that God is not subject to morality. Only humans are subject to morality.
God is by nature all-good, so God cannot be immoral, that is logically impossible.
God sets the moral framework for humans because God knows what is moral and immoral human behavior since God created humans with a purpose in mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

So god didn't know which shirt he would choose.
Yikes.

Of course God knew which shirt he would choose, God is all-knowing.

 

[ratiocinator]

Science ''lost'' to religion , because science no matter how hard they try cannot create something from nothing , they had to start creation from a high dense state , no explanation of the formation of this state .
Science is quite clearly at a loss for an answer of everything , which gives God more reality in existence than sciences reality .

Not only is this obvious non sequitur, it's not as if dreaming up a god as "an answer of everything" is any better than the hot dense state you refer to (or the whole space-time manifold, which is a better description of where science has got to). Unless you can explain god's existence (without special pleading), it just adds to the problem of "an answer of everything" (god, if it exists, being a part of everything), rather than solving it.

It really does mystify me why people think that just inventing a "god" answers any sort of fundamental question about why things exist and are the way they are. Nobody, as far as I know, has a credible answer to that question, including theists - because they can't explain why their god just happens to exist, rather than another god, no gods, multiple gods, or nothing at all.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is pointless. You are repeatedly contradicting yourself and denying reason and logic.
You claim that god has infallible foreknowledge of what choice we will make, yet you also claim that we are free to make choices different to the one god knows we will make.
The two positions are fundamentally, and clearly mutually exclusive.

Also, the issue has been explained to you several times yet you keep attacking the same straw man. It's almost as if you are deliberately refusing to understand what is being said.

I claim that God has infallible foreknowledge of what choice we will make, but I do not claim that we will make choices different from the choices God knows we will make.

We will make the choices that God knows we will make, but only because the choices we will make are identical with the choices that God knows we will make. If we make a different choice then God would have always known that was the choice we would make.

The choices we make are not caused by God's knowledge, that are caused by our own volition and action, whay is commonly termed free will.

Can you imagine going into a courtroom and telling the judge: "Judge, God knew I would murder my wife on November 18, 2021, so I had no choice but to murder my wife. God made me do it because God knew I was going to do it."

This is completely nonsensical. What God knows we will do does not cause us to do anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is inevitable that we will make the choice that god knows we will make - whatever that choice is.

True, but only because God knows the choice we will make. God does not cause us to make that choice by knowing we will make it. We can make choices because we have free will to make choices.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you have already admitted that we can't make any choice other than the one god knows we will make.
Although you also claimed that we can make choices other than the one god knows we will make.

No, I never claimed that we can make choices other than the one God knows we will make. See my previous posts.

But god isn't bound by his own moral code? Seems a bit hypocritical.

God cannot be hypocritical because God is not a human. You are anthropomorphizing God because you want to bring God down to a human level so you can say that God is subject to everything humans are subject to, but He isn't.

So at any given moment, our choices must match the ones god knows we will make.

Our choices WILL match the choices that God knows we will make because God knows the choices we will make.
But if we had made a different choice, that choice would also match the choice that God knew we would make.

So god doesn't know what we will do until we do it.
I also have that magical power.

God knows everything that we we have done are doing or will do. God does not exist in time so there is no such thing as "until we do it."

Apart from the fact that the "answer" is little more than word salad, it is also the same old straw man.

No one is claiming that infallible foreknowledge causes an event, just that it makes that event inevitable.

If foreknowledge makes an event inevitable how is that 'different' from causing that event?

"Judge! It was inevitable that I would murder my wife because God knew I would murder my wife."

Now explain how God's infallible foreknowledge made that event inevitable.

 

[Sheldon]

You are incorrect , all religion was originally thoughts on science and how the universe was created . they had to start creation from a high dense state , no explanation of the formation of this state .

Science is evidence based, there is no scientific evidence for any deity, that's a given, and unfalsifiable claims are unscientific and rejected as such, did you not know this?

Modern Sciences answer was the Big Bang theory that was accepted by many although it is incomplete .

It neither evidences or requires any deity, in fact adding a deity violates Occam's razor, and adds nothing to the explanatory powers of the theory.

Science ''lost'' to religion , because science no matter how hard they try cannot create something from nothing ,

That's meaningless gibberish sorry.

The answer they came up with was God , a theory of a creator that is accepted by many .

It's an unevidenced belief, is answers nothing, and the number of people who believe something tells us nothing about the validity of the belief, that is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. There is not scientific theory of any deity either, you are using the word theory here in it's commonly understood context, which is very different for its scientific context, did you not know they are different, I explained it in my post, reread it.

Science is quite clearly at a loss for an answer of everything , which gives God more reality in existence than sciences reality .

Nonsense, that's an argumentum ad ingorantiam fallacy, a god of the gaps polemic. Science is a method for examining and understanding reality, nothing it currently understands evidences or requires any deity, and all unfalsifiable claims are unscientific, again you seem not to know this, perhaps that is why you ignored it.

Falsifiability is an essential basic requirement for all scientific ideas.

 

[Sheldon]

God cannot be hypocritical because God is not a human.

Begging the question fallacy.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

It really does mystify me why people think that just inventing a "god" answers any sort of fundamental question about why things exist and are the way they are. Nobody, as far as I know, has a credible answer to that question, including theists - because they can't explain why their god just happens to exist, rather than another god, no gods, multiple gods, or nothing at all.

The Big Bang theory jumps in time from nothing to a high dense state . The psychology of this is placing some thing in an otherwise empty reference frame . They do not explain how this some thing came to be , so why should anyone try to or need to explain how God came to be ?

Top of my head , I will make something up right now , the universe began with a void that was absent of all matter , then formed throughout this void was a low dense state of electrostatic energy which eventually began the epoch of time .

How is what I just made up any less credible than the Big Bang theory ?

How is God any less credible than either speculation ?

The point is for some thing to form from no thing would require a real physical miracle .

Let us say you are correct and the big bang created the universe , physics still does not explain ourselves .