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

[samtonga43]

Mainline Protestants and the Catholic Church reconcile modern science with their faith in Creation through forms of theistic evolution which hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature, and accept evolution. Some groups call their belief evolutionary creationism.

Creationism - Wikipedia

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

Nonsense. That statement is itself a logical fallacy. Do you want me to tell you which one, or can you work it out for yourself?

 

[Sheldon]

Nonsense. That statement is itself a logical fallacy. Do you want me to tell you which one, or can you work it out for yourself?

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

No true Scotsman fallacy I'd say. Though in the US most polls suggest almost 45% of adults still deny the fact of species evolution, this is not necessarily the case in other countries, and for other Christians.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you never heard of Theistic Evolution?

"Theistic evolution" usually involves rejecting the core ideas of actual evolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No true Scotsman fallacy I'd say. Though in the US most polls suggest almost 45% of adults still deny the fact of species evolution, this is not necessarily the case in other countries, and for other Christians.

It's the case for all observant Catholics (the largest Christian denominationon the planet), though I'd also argue that most Catholics aren't that observant.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII

(Edit: however, to be fair, most people in general don't realize that the minimum viable population for a species is much larger than a single mated pair)

 

[Sheldon]

"Theistic evolution" usually involves rejecting the core ideas of actual evolution.

It's also irrelevant to the scientific theory, which neither evidences nor needs any deity. The deity tacked on also adds no explanatory powers whatsoever.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nonsense. That statement is itself a logical fallacy. Do you want me to tell you which one, or can you work it out for yourself?

It is logically justified to conclude that many Christians are creationists who reject evolutionary theory since many are.
There is nothing fallacious about that and it can be backed up by statistics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's also irrelevant to the scientific theory, which neither evidences nor needs any deity. The deity tacked on also adds no explanatory powers whatsoever.

I think it goes beyond that. The theory of evolution says that the factors involved in speciation and the history of life on Earth are:

- random mutation
- inheritance
- natural selection

... and nothing else to a significant degree.

Darwinian evolution is incompatible with any hypothesis that says that other factors played a significant role in the development of life. This is true whether we're talking about Lamarckism or the idea of a god controlling the process.

 

[rational experiences]

Atheists said there is no God in science.

As science was a man thinking worded descriptive analogy about reactions and it was relative to artificial maths.

Hence he caused an artificial event. Change and forced change to any natural highest pre existing state. Any state he chose to convert.

As he knows a man thinking did not create creation. Yet to supplement his ego he poses theories that he believes allows his pretence to be real.

Maths was artificial by intent.

Maths he said stated O earth held all numbers in its wilderness inside of a cold zero first as fusion.

His false claim God.

God scientists state planet earth is mass as God the creator. As science takes any type from the mass as a human scientist. O planet owned it..then it creates from its owned substance.

Yet a lot of reactions are detrimental to existing.

Knowing God did not invent a life from a reaction.

Science the theist said he sacrificed life by maths caused radiation released transmitters whose radiation mass equalled a pre heaven status.

As heavens mass is a huge cold voiding body as compared to its past heated mass.

And image recorded us by using up half of our water life oxygenated supported age...life span. To contradict the radiation science the man released.

Ignored as relevant to how and why a human image got particular transfered into the machine data. Trapped inside a machine abducted in science.

Scientists today want us to be a particle and want it to be real as a beginning.

It was our loss. Removal. Abduction. As bio living humans explained attacked.

So then he argues says no you boarded the wood ark and was saved. I'm not talking alien machine status I am talking cloud image.

So we have to suggest to him what is his machine design using as types of gases in the components of transmitting machines that possess our spirit image?

In the past they never had computers and TVs or phones.

A big bang particle theist says I believe in the big bang all separate types energy particles existed. Then they owned their own form holding. as earth substances are all different.

Why he tries to place a human in that pretence moment also.

To theory in this condition he then tries to placate so if I pass radiation particles through everything you won't all die as you are already are inside the machine transmitting.

Alien theists.

Is why humans teaching humans about theists and human consciousness named particular theists life's destroyers.

When consciousness says we are still in the blast bang moment they mean the sun and gas light status earth heavens

The only place bio consciousness exists living as consciousness.

Then they argue...consciousness as a theist existed before me. Oh you mean the AI transmitters you caused recording as the state that exists before natural life had.

No man is God a real teaching.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Atheists said there is no God in science.
...
..he knows a man thinking did not create creation. Yet to supplement his ego he poses theories that he believes allows his pretence to be real..

Mmm .. the ego can be an enemy. We can destroy our own souls.

 

[Sheldon]

Mmm .. the ego can be an enemy. We can destroy our own souls.

That's like accidentally stepping on your invisible pet cat.

 

[rational experiences]

Mmm .. the ego can be an enemy. We can destroy our own souls.

If a human natural is affected by heavenly science causes tells stories then they do. Science says what are you talking about!!!

The natural human not a scientific theist about states in the heavens.

A natural human cannot destroy anything.

Science however by machine conditions can.

If a human says God keeps my life safe.

I saw the human condition safety. As a blue ping on the shoulder. Saw it many times. Cooled previous attack. Removed.

For any human to define a conscious story it relates always to human memory and a reason to teach that the event O circular cooling in heavens protects ground life.

Explained gods spirit in the great deep.void...gases cooling on the face of water. Moving spiralling O G spiral O.changed by I intensity magnetisation into DD back filled by OO.

G O D one word. It's word. It's movement. Life's safety.

Does gods protection change? Yes huge storms. As men released huge amounts of sealed earth stone radiation. Sink holes the evidence transfer of communicated signals.

Power plant affects earth mass fusion. You know by experiments in one place manifests in another that it is truth. Why you forbade nuclear science.

Earth released the radiation.

We only define stories that relate advice on the past why God never kept us protected. To preach why God did protect us.

Reason a human teaches.

 

[rational experiences]

That's like accidentally stepping on your invisible pet cat.

Yes lost previous cats to atmospheric science causes. Have a new pet cat that nearly trips me.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's like accidentally stepping on your invisible pet cat.

That is true.

“Spirit cannot be perceived by the material senses of the physical body, excepting as it is expressed in outward signs and works. The human body is visible, the soul is invisible. It is the soul nevertheless that directs a man’s faculties, that governs his humanity.”
Paris Talks, p. 86

 

[samtonga43]

It is logically justified to conclude that many Christians are creationists who reject evolutionary theory since many are.
There is nothing fallacious about that and it can be backed up by statistics.

But this is not what you said. What you said IS a logical fallacy.

 

[Tiberius]

With respect, that doesn't answer the question..

There is no 'before' when considering different frames of reference. Nobody is "taking information back in time".
It's a case of one frame perceiving something before another frame perceives it.
..and I'm asking you what limits the difference between them.
If you don't know, then that's OK.
Presumably you know, though, as you were asking me to show you the maths earlier.

Surely, it is to do with the relative velocity between frames ?

You don't seem to actually understand relativity.

On Monday, I get in a rocketship, and I go really fast. Almost at the speed of light. After what I perceive as a few seconds of flying around, I stop and land my rocket on Earth. I discover that it is now Friday. I look around and see what's happening, then I get back into my rocketship armed with my knowledge of what happens on Friday.

Now, pray tell, how do I get back to Monday? Or heck, even Tuesday would do.

 

[Tiberius]

God does not tell us what to do. God reveals teachings and laws to guide us to make the best choices and then we are left to be responsible for our own choices.

Stop avoiding the issue. You know what I was asking. Why does he bother to do it at all.

I know that God sends Messengers from what Baha’u’llah revealed about the Messengers. I know God answers prayers at His own discretion from what Baha’u’llah revealed about prayers.

Okay. And how do you know what Mr B revealed is accurate?

God acts just like God would act if He exists, says in hiding and reveals Himself through Messengers who act as God’s Representatives on earth.

It really is not complicated at all, it is a rather simple system. God acts as God chooses to act, which is to send Messengers to communicate to humans in every age. In so doing, God bridges the gap between Himself and humans. Since Messengers have a twofold nature, both divine and human, they can understand communication from God and translate what they hear from God and relay it back to humans in a form that humans can understand.

It's also exactly what we'd expect if God didn't exist and people thought they were being spoken to by him, bnut they were mistaken.

 

[Tiberius]

That is correct, and the same can be said about religious truth; it is not only true in theory, it is true in practice and it has been proven objectively true by practice over the millennia.

“All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed.” Paris Talks, pp. 141-142

No it hasn't. You've even agreed with me that there is no objective proof for religious truth.

Baha’u’llah explained why the religions are different in many of His Writings. Religions are different in every age because people and the world they live in change from age to age. Spiritual truth never changes because man’s spiritual nature does not change or alter, but material truth changes because the material world changes over time, so man has different requirements in every age.

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

Remember this passage? You can think of the Messengers of God as Divine Physicians who bring a remedy to heal the spiritual afflictions humanity is facing at the times in which they appear. The afflictions that humanity is facing in this age are not the same as we faced in the past so the remedy is different from what Messengers brought in the past. What the next Messenger will bring in the future will be different from what Baha’u’llah revealed; it will be suited to the needs of humanity in the future times.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

So what? Every religion has something they think is able to answer any question and justify any point they have.

Without testable evidence, these claims mean nothing.

That is what I just explained above. What is the same in every age is spiritual truth -- faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. These are attributes of man’s spiritual nature which never changes, so they have no need to change over time. For example, Baha’u’llah reiterated what Jesus said about righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, and patience but He did not change the teachings.

However, as the material world changes man needs new teachings and laws that are suited to the present time.

“The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.” Some Answered Questions, p. 48

So you've got a system to explain why points of view change over time.

Well, colour me surprised.

I never said “it can’t be right because it makes no sense to me.” I asked some questions to elicit your opinion, those questions you never answered. I believe it because it makes sense to me but that is not the same as me saying “it can’t be right unless it makes sense to me.”

No, I was directly quoting your reasons why you didn't believe that God would just send one person with one message, and you said that it didn't make any sense to you.

They can verify it as true the same way I verified it, the way a religious truth is verified.

*Sigh* We've been over this.

If a person does your "verification," how do they determine that it is actually verified and they haven't made any errors?

That is not what I said. You are changing what I said into what you think I meant. If you wanted me to prove that what I believe is true then you would have to believe what I am saying is true. I did not say you would already believe it before I proved it to you. You would not believe it until I proved it to you. If you were really receptive and wanted to understand what I was saying you might believe me. Otherwise you would reject what I am saying out of hand.

I literally cut and pasted your own words. If the words are there it is because you wrote them. So DO NOT accuse me of misrepresenting you when I am quoting your own words, okay?

I have supported my position dozens of times but I cannot force anyone to believe what I believe.

It's not support unless you can produce testable evidence.

IF you were a true seeker, it would be your job to look more closely at what I am offering. That is what I meant by doing your homework. I meant research, you know, like you do on college.

I've been looking at the arguments presented by believers of all different faiths for twenty years, and I keep seeing the same flawed arguments again and again. I've seen nothing different from you. So you'll forgive me if I don't see any reason to look into your claims any closer. They are just so much like the other religious claims I've already examined and rejected, I just don't see the point in wasting my time.

Now, if you had something that was actually NEW and UNIQUE to show me, that would get my attention.

You just gave yourself away. You are in a debate trying to win (your position vs. my position) so you have no interest in knowing the truth about God. Thanks for keying me in.

I find it very curious that you think anyone who challenges your views isn't interested in learning the truth, but just trying to win.

You seem to be playing the victim here in order to justify not having to support your position.

As I told you before I am not in a debate trying to win because that would egotistical and a waste of my time. Once I realize someone is just playing a game and trying to prove me wrong it not long after that I call it quits.

And you don't think that what you're doing is already egotistical? You come in here, essentially derail a thread about proof of God's existence into a thread about why Baha'i is right, you make claims saying that Mr B got it all right, refuse to provide support and then when anyone tries to challenge you, you come out with, "I'm not here for a debate, I'm just stating my beliefs!"

And don't give me that stuff about "Once I realize someone is just playing a game and trying to prove me wrong it not long after that I call it quits," because if that were true you would have stopped replying to me months ago.

 

[Tiberius]

That’s true, but then you are an agnostic atheist, not an atheist. Atheists say there is no God.

We'll add atheism to the list of things you don't understand.

I do not claim they are true because I cannot prove they are true. I believe they are true.

What you do in this thread is functionally the same as claiming they are true. So don't try to hide behind wordplay.

Me saying I disagree and I have another opinion is not the same as telling someone they are wrong. I disagree that Jesus ever meant that if you have faith you can actually move a mountain and even Christians would agree that is not what Jesus meant. It is obviously metaphorical. Just ask any Christian.

Again, hiding behind wordplay.

When I presented that passage as an example of a testable claim in the Bible that fails, you essentially said, "Nup, you're wrong, because it was meant metaphorically."

We should get evidence wherever you can find it.

That's a terrible idea. That would lead to people accepting ANYTHING as evidence.

As I said in my previous post, I have supported my position dozens of times. Atheists still say it is nonsense and it is not my job to convince them otherwise.

Then stop acting like we're being unreasonable when we don't believe you.

Evidence indicates that a belief is true, an opinion is just an opinion that something is true.

This doesn't answer the question.

I'd someone holds that a particular claim is objectively true, how do they determine if it is based on objective evidence, or if it is just based on a subjective opinion?

Spiritual reality can be found is people really want to understand how it is found and put in an effort to find it.

“The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man’s own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 81-82

Seems to me that this is just saying that someone who wants to believe in spiritual reality while find a way to convince themselves that it is real.

 

[Trailblazer]

Stop avoiding the issue. You know what I was asking. Why does he bother to do it at all.

I already told you in a previous post why God reveals the teachings and laws to guide us. God wants us to have guidance because God loves us and what is the best for us.

Okay. And how do you know what Mr B revealed is accurate?

I know because there is evidence that shows that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God and as a Messenger of God, He was infallible so what He wrote had to be accurate.

It's also exactly what we'd expect if God didn't exist and people thought they were being spoken to by him, but they were mistaken.

But WHY would we expect to see what I just described? Give me one good reason.

If that is what you think then you should be able to tell me what you think we would see if God DID exist. Fair is fair.

So, if God did exist how would God communicate to humans and show that He existed?

I see that we have gone full circle and we are right back at the OP:

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

 

[Tiberius]

That would not make any difference. I cannot justify my beliefs to other people, they either believe they are is justified by what I tell them or not.

Things that a really true don't work like that.

If someone doesn't believe me that 1+1=2, then there are any number of proofs that I can show which prove without any doubt that the claim is correct.

You are not going to stop talking about science and conflating it with religion, are you? Everyone agrees on scientific facts because scientific facts have been proven to be true. Religion can never be proven to be true so some people believe it is true and some people don’t. Everyone will never agree that a religion is true until the distant future when God has magnified His testimony to all who are on earth. How God will do that is anyone’s best guess. Meanwhile people will continue to adhere to their own religions, religions they like and are attached to.

“Warn and acquaint the people, O Servant, with the things We have sent down unto Thee, and let the fear of no one dismay Thee, and be Thou not of them that waver. The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 248

No, you don't seem to get it.

It's not about science and religion, it's about how to know if something is real or fake.

No, I have presented the rational reasons why religion cannot be verified objectively, and you have refused to accept those rational reasons.

The problem is that your reasons are NOT rational.

It's like when Dart h Maul was cut in half in Star Wars The Phantom Menace and then he fell down that big hole thing. Then they said, "Oh, and he survived," and had him with robot spider legs, and then mechanical legs. But no answer was really given as to how he actually survived. Just some handwavium and fantheorium. They just asked for us to suspend our disbelief because it allowed them to tell some interesting stories.

But that's fiction. It's excusable in fiction. But in reality, you need to provide REAL explanations, not fan theories.

You want something you can never have and I consider that irrational.

I know I can never get it. You miss the point. If something is real, I can get evidence for it. If it is impossible to ever get objective evidence for something, then we should not believe that it exists.

No, it does not work that way at all. If you are open to the possibility that God might exist then you will look at the evidence that might indicate that God exists. That does not mean you will be taken in and believe anything you see as evidence. Conversely, if you are not open to the possibility that God might exist then you will not look at any evidence that might indicate that God exists and it is a guarantee that you will never be a believer.

And it will surprise you, no doubt, to be told that I AM open to the possibility that God exists. All I ask for is a good reason to believe. It's not my problem if the only stuff you can offer is the same logically flawed arguments that others have thrown up before.