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

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: How could it be wrong if it was proven to be true?

Tiberius said: You tell me, you're the one who claimed it!

You said, "...proof does not make anything true" in post 3826.

I did not claim that it could be wrong if it was proven true. If it is proven true it cannot be wrong but that proof is not what makes it true. It is either true or not.

The earth is either spherical or not. Proof is not what makes the earth a sphere. Even before there was proof that the earth was a sphere, the earth was a sphere.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand how science works. Scientific truths do not change. Our understanding of them changes, but not the objective facts about our universe.

Objective facts about the universe do not change but scientific knowledge changes over time when new things are discovered.

Why does scientific knowledge change over time?

The accepted views of science knowledge can change over time. Changes can result from new science observations, but can also be affected by social, political or religious convictions. To develop a deeper understanding, students need to investigate the context of the time in which science ideas were developed.
How science ideas change over time

The evolution of a scientific theory

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time. Jul 28, 2017
What Is a Scientific Theory? - Live Science

Hahahahahahahaaha

Yes, that's why there's no conflict at all between the different religions, because they all preach the same thing!

The reason there is conflict is because the religions do not realize that spiritual truth is the same in all the religions. But even when that is pointed out to them it makes no difference. Religious people cling tenaciously to their own religion because they believe it is the best, the last, and the only religion that is true.

So if the messenger changes, the message he brings changes, the religions change, the times change and the people change, what are you using as the basis for your claim that spiritual truths do not change?

Spiritual truths do not have to change because they are eternal; they are the same in every age.

The Law of God is divided into two parts. One is the fundamental basis which comprises all spiritual things—that is to say, it refers to the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen......

These divine qualities, these eternal commandments, will never be abolished; nay, they will last and remain established for ever and ever. These virtues of humanity will be renewed in each of the different cycles; for at the end of every cycle the spiritual Law of God—that is to say, the human virtues—disappears, and only the form subsists.
Some Answered Questions, pp. 47-48

Trailblazer said: This makes logical sense as there would be no reason for God to send a new Messenger unless He came with a new message. Do you think it makes more sense what Christians believe, that God only sends one man, Jesus, with a message that applies for all time and eternity? That makes no sense to me because that would mean that all the other religions are wrong, and that can’t be true because it is utterly illogical. If God is a loving and just God, how could He only care about Christians who are only about one third of the world population?

Logical fallacy. Argument from incredulity.

It is not a fallacy because I did not say "it must be false” because it contradicts my personal expectations or beliefs."

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

I asked you some questions that you chose not to answer. Instead, you deflected and accused me of a fallacy.

It most definitely is the wrong word to use.

And I've told you many times that what you are talking about is nothing more than convincing yourself that your opinion is true.

No, it is not me convincing myself that my opinion is true, it is me being convinced by the evidence that indicates that my religion is true.

In other words, people won't believe you unless they believe you.

That is not what I said or meant.

Because the person who says, "God/my religion is real," is the one who has the burden of proof.

I have no burden whatsoever just because I hold a belief. If you want to believe you bear the burden to look at the evidence.

It is not my job to do your homework, I already did my own homework.

 

[CG Didymus]

Scientific models cannot test religion.

Of course it can if religions make falsifiable claims, or offer data to be examined. Geology demonstrates that the Noah flood myth is errant nonsense,

Yes, science can prove that certain religious beliefs such as the Noah flood and the bodily resurrection and the bodily ascension of Jesus are wrong.

So, science can make some of the things claimed by a religion sound like nothing more than myths? Interesting. But God and his messengers are not mythical? But, then again, Baha'is do believe God can perform miracles. But Baha'is know for sure he didn't raise Jesus from the dead... but God have, because God can do anything. But, even though, the gospels say he did, God didn't.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have no burden whatsoever just because I hold a belief. If you want to believe you bear the burden to look at the evidence.

It is not my job to do your homework, I already did my own homework.

Okay, you researched the Baha'i Faith and found it to be true. Now what are you supposed to do?

 

[Trailblazer]

Belief, at least in the religious sense, is opinion.

The belief of atheists that there is no God is also an opinion.

Yes, it is the wrong word.

And being convinced by evidence does not mean that what you are convinced of is true.

I never said it was. It could be true or false.

But not all of us find the evidence convincing.

Of course you don’t but why should that matter to me? I have no interest in convincing anyone of what I believe.

And yet you don't require any way to double check your conclusions to eliminate any errors you may have made, such as getting other people to check your reasoning. Not that high, it seems.

You or anyone else can double check anything you want to but there is no reason to think your opinions are any better than my opinions. Remember, a religious belief is just an opinion.

Prove it.

Not my job.

Maybe that should tell you that you don't actually have any evidence.

That atheists say “that’s not evidence” should tell me what I have is not evidence?

You say “that’s not evidence” because you don’t recognize the evidence since you are expecting some other kind of evidence that doesn’t exist. I cannot do anything about that.

I'll tell you what, how about we do it like this. Let's figure out something that should be there if spiritual reality exists, but should NOT be there if there is no spiritual reality. Then, we''ll go and see if that thing exists. If we find it, then it supports the idea that there is a spiritual reality. But if we don't find it, it supports the idea that there is no spiritual reality. Does that sound good to you?

Sorry, spiritual reality is not a ‘thing’ that you can find. Things you can find are part of material reality. You have to dig deeper to find spiritual reality, and the discovery of spiritual reality is a process that is constantly unfolding all throughout life.

 

[Trailblazer]

Doesn't change the fact that there is no justification for the things you say.

I do not need to justify my belief to anyone.

Irrelevant. It's an ideal that we should strive towards, not necessarily representing any actual person. Like those riddles where there are some people who always lie and some people who always tell the truth.

I agree it is an idea we should strive towards but it is not irrelevant because you said it would work for everyone.

Funny how that's never an issue with other things that are objective.

You mean scientific facts that have been proven thus they mean the same thing to everyone. We have already covered why objective scientific facts are is different from objective facts about a religion that will mean different things to different people.

The problem is that if someone sets out to find God, then they are starting from the assumption that there is a God to find.

No, they are not starting with that assumption. They are only open to the possibility that there might be a God to find.

 

[Trailblazer]

"You"? sounds personal to me. You could have said, "I believe you're wrong." But then to say they don't have any logical abilities? That isn't a respectful thing to say.

I could have said that I believe you are wrong, but by that time I was not in that frame of mind.
That was a question "Do you have any logical abilities?" It was not a statement.

And how would you feel if, or maybe when, a Christian or an Atheist tells you that you are "dead" wrong and you have zero logical capabilities, They are talking about you. They are being very personal. But it's different when you do it?

When an atheist tells me I have no objective evidence for what I believe because if I had it everyone would believe it I am going to say what I said because it was called for. I don't care if a Christian or atheist tells me I am dead wrong. It is the atheists who are constantly telling me I am wrong, not me telling them that. And when it comes to my beliefs about Baha'u'llah you know what the Christians say.

I did not say that anyone had zero logical capabilities.

 

[Trailblazer]

So again, have you done the necessary research? Yet, you say everything has been fulfilled or will be fulfilled. But you don't care to research it? So, you are taking Bill Sears word for it? And every "prophecy" you've quoted has had problems with it. It's only "icing" to Baha'is. A reason to doubt and suspect the validity of the claims for many of those who do research and investigate, because so many of them are one verse taken out of context. Attempts by Baha'is to tie it in with the context only make it worse. And it shouldn't. It should help and support the interpretation.

You can question Bill Sears all you want to but I don't think I am qualified to know more than he knew about the Bible or the history of the Baha'i Faith.

It has problems for you but it has no problems for me. You will always find problems but you cannot prove the prophecies have problems, so it is just your personal opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is there a quote from the Baha'i writings that supports this? 'Cause it seems like God would be more involved like he is for Christians. He sends angels and the Holy Spirit to guide and protect them. Or are they misinterpreting things?

Regarding the love God has for us:

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.”

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

Regarding the angels and the Holy Spirit guiding the Baha'is:

“Let not your hearts be perturbed, O people, when the glory of My Presence is withdrawn, and the ocean of My utterance is stilled. In My presence amongst you there is a wisdom, and in My absence there is yet another, inscrutable to all but God, the Incomparable, the All-Knowing. Verily, We behold you from Our realm of glory, and shall aid whosoever will arise for the triumph of Our Cause with the hosts of the Concourse on high and a company of Our favored angels.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

 

[Trailblazer]

What did we learn about God from the Buddha?

I really do not know since that is not in the Baha'i Writings.

I was under the impression that Buddha taught a way that others could follow to become enlightened the same as he was. Or is that a false teaching about Buddha and the only true one is where it quotes him speaking about God?

I have no idea if that is a true teaching of the Buddha but it is what Buddhists believe.
I do not know if any quotes from Buddha speaking about God. There are no scriptures written by Buddha, all we have is what came by way of oral tradition.

 

[Trailblazer]

And those beliefs about who God is and what happens to people after they die change? 'Cause there sure seems to be different things being said in the Scriptures of different religions.

The beliefs about who God is and what happens to people after they die are revealed differently in every age, according to what people were able to understand in the age in which they were revealed.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, science can make some of the things claimed by a religion sound like nothing more than myths? Interesting. But God and his messengers are not mythical? But, then again, Baha'is do believe God can perform miracles. But Baha'is know for sure he didn't raise Jesus from the dead... but God have, because God can do anything. But, even though, the gospels say he did, God didn't.

That's a pretty accurate rendition of what Baha'is believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, you researched the Baha'i Faith and found it to be true. Now what are you supposed to do?

Follow the teachings and laws to the best of my ability.

 

[rational experiences]

Father spiritual voice image told us by God state heavens recorded voice life recording information.

Memory. Manifests itself in human crisis by caused human chosen crisis.

Spiritual.image. spiritual voice. Recorded. Advice and warnings with purpose. Visionary image data shared.

To guide us in relation to man theist baby scientific lying. The destroyer men tality. Psyche of men science theist.

Who heard old science recordings and copied them. Old man's thesis who destroyed all life on O God earth.

Was what we were taught as babies we were adult falsely slave indoctrinated.

By greedy rich civilization inventor science brothers.

Who forced an unnatural lifestyle on family to live a life of scientific cruelty.

They know the choice human history real. So own no personal human scientific advice to claim life on earth is safe. They try to convince us in lying.

As a liar they became the most dangerous human as they would lie until we all get destroyed was the greedy human warning.

Lying is not safe is a conscious teaching as they make choice on false inequality reasons not just on science itself.

The basis I need a non stop energy life for machines resources is not living a natural life reality.

False human belief. I own a life without death. A fake teaching.

Now science based a thesis I want non stop life for machines.

First lie was bad enough. See his second lie is our destruction.

Water exists on earth and has done so since earth existed is his conscious advice. Is not a never ending life or resource.

It is just water.

Memory is recorded in water with a God state is not an eternal never ending life.

Misconstrued teaching.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..for a person at the present time to have knowledge of the future while they are still in the present..

..you haven't mentioned any frame of reference, so do we assume that "this person's present" is the same as our's?

You conveniently ignored my former questions..
What limits the effects of relativity of simultaneity as to regards the time difference between experiencing events?

Do you not understand that an observer can experience events before we have?
That is why Einstein said that our experience of "now" is merely an illusion, and why relativity predicts a deterministic universe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We know that event 1 is in the light cone of event 2, since they are episodes of the same objects so that there is a causal link between them which established a conical order. But because of the well known fact of time dilation, an observer moving at a velocity near c relative to her basic frame will not measure the duration between event 1 and event 2 as one stund.
[an undetermined amount of time]

If, then, for different observers in our own spacetime the difference between event 1 and event 2 is not always one stund, how can we insist that the duration between event 1 and event 2 will be one stund in God’s time?

We can then conclude that, indeed, God transcends any Measured Time, and is thus relatively timeless.

 

[night912]

This makes logical sense as there would be no reason for God to send a new Messenger unless He came with a new message. Do you think it makes more sense what Christians believe, that God only sends one man, Jesus, with a message that applies for all time and eternity? That makes no sense to me because that would mean t÷I hat all the other religions are wrong, and that can’t be true because it is utterly illogical. If God is a loving and just God, how could He only care about Christians who are only about one third of the world population?

It is not a fallacy because I did not say "it must be false” because it contradicts my personal expectations or beliefs."

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

Just because you don't think that it's a logical fallacy due to your ignorance, that doesn't mean that it is not a fallacy. Logical fallacies does not require exact wording. An argument can have none of the words that are found in the example and still qualifies as being the same fallacy due to having the same structure. Anyone copy and paste links and/or the definition of the fallacy, but what's important is understanding what was written in the article. When someone accuse another person of committing a logical fallacy and follow it with the meaning of the fallacy they've copied and pasted from an article that they found without pointing out where the fallacy was committed and why it's a fallacy, it usually means that they themselves don't understand the logical fallacy, which Trailblazer is guilty of doing on numerous occasions.

Below is part of an article that explains the fallacy. Let's compare the examples below with Trailblazer's comment.

Examples of the argument from incredulity

A simple example of the argument from incredulity appears in the case of someone who says “I can’t believe that their story could possibly be false, so it must be true”.
In addition, other examples of the argument from incredulity appear in a variety of situations, many of which include an attempt to discredit or refute a scientific theory. For instance:
- “I can’t imagine how humans could have evolved from single-celled organisms; it just doesn’t make sense to me. There is no way that the theory of evolution is right.”

Here's the result that was found:
Article: "That makes no sense to me. There is no way that the theory of evolution is right.”

Trailblazer: "That makes no sense to me because that would mean that all the other religions are wrong, and that can’t be true because it is utterly illogical."

HahahHa!!!!
Looks like Trailblazer's dishonesty and/or ignorance of logical fallacies came back to bit her in the a**.

 

[night912]

It is logically justified to conclude that Christians are creationists who reject evolutionary theory since the majority are.

No, because saying that is just self contradictory. Again, for someone who does not understand logic, you shouldn't be talking as if you actually understand logic.

But if you really do use that way of reasoning, then you should accept and not throw a tantrum whenever someone calls you and/or your response as being dishonest/illogical/irrational/ignorant/egotistical. Going by your reasoning, since majority of your responses are exactly that once someone has pointed it out and presented a justifiable explanation and you realize that you can no longer defend your argument honestly/logically/rationally.

I know that you, Trailblazer, have me on your ignore list, but I'm still responding to your comments because they are what they are. This can also help others who might have similar reasoning as you do and help them think more critically.

In other words, it's not just about you and/or personally attacking you, like how you've accuse others of doing whenever your beliefs/ideas are challenged.

 

[Sheldon]

Why does scientific knowledge change over time?

Well it doesn't necessarily, but one of the methods greatest strengths is that it follows the evidence, thus all ideas, even well established scientific facts that are very unlikely to change in any significant way, must still remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence.

Otherwise science would end up cloning to falsified dogma in the way many religions do. Or trying to desperately rationalise why inerrant texts from an omniscient deity turned out to be errant nonsense, like the Noah flood myth for example.

 

[Sheldon]

The belief of atheists that there is no God is also an opinion.

As has been explained exhaustively, not all atheists hold such a belief, and when I polled the atheists on here, it demonstrated resoundingly that most atheists here do not hold such a belief. So it is disingenuous to make that comparison, since all theists believe in a deity or deities.

 

[Sheldon]

Do you not understand that an observer can experience events before we have?

That is pure assumption on your part, just because it is theoretically possible for time to be observed from another perspective, does not mean an entity can exist to do that. You are simply leaping to conclusions without any objective evidence, and tacking them onto Einstein's observations about space time, using nothing more than a god of the gaps polemic.