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

[Trailblazer]

Why would you say that? People still believe that stuff. And your religion includes it as being "God's Word".

I know many people still believe that stuff and care but I don't care. Look around you at what is going on on the world. Those religions are not going to fix anything and Jesus is not coming back to save the world. The Bible is God's Word but it has long since been renewed.

“…….. Once in about a thousand years shall this City be renewed and readorned….

“That City is none other than the Word of God revealed in every age and dispensation. In the days of Moses it was the Pentateuch; in the days of Jesus, the Gospel; in the days of Muhammad, the Messenger of God, the Qur’án; in this day, the Bayán; and in the Dispensation of Him Whom God will make manifest, His own Book—the Book unto which all the Books of former Dispensations must needs be referred, the Book that standeth amongst them all transcendent and supreme.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 270

 

[muhammad_isa]

The relativity doesn't apply, because it describes what happens to someone in our frame of reference who starts travelling very fast. So you can't use it to support your claim.

Of course it doesn't .. that is just an example.
If you'd just rather it not be possible, then just keep repeating your baseless assertions.


The effect of the relativity of simultaneity is for each observer to consider that a different set of events is simultaneous. The relativistic phase difference between clocks means that observers who are moving relative to each other have different sets of things that are simultaneous, or in their "present moment".

This indeed, implies that it is possible for an observer not in our frame of reference to be aware of what we consider to be future events. I know you don't like it, but I'm afraid it's true.

 

[Sheldon]

Tiberius said: ↑
The relativity doesn't apply, because it describes what happens to someone in our frame of reference who starts travelling very fast. So you can't use it to support your claim.

Of course it doesn't .. that is just an example.
If you'd just rather it not be possible, then just keep repeating your baseless assertions.

Still trying to reverse the burden of proof. The claim is yours that this is possible, logically no one has to disprove this, and since you can demonstrate no evidence to support it, they are also free to disbelieve it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..and since you can demonstrate no evidence to support it, they are also free to disbelieve it.

..support what exactly?
I assume that you are saying that it's only hypothetical, and that
I can't prove that an agent is in a different frame of reference that perceives our future.

I have no need of proving such an agent exists.
It's enough to demonstrate that your notion of it being impossible to know a future event is incorrect.
That is where this discussion started .. remember?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
..and since you can demonstrate no evidence to support it, they are also free to disbelieve it.

..support what exactly?

Your claim, that a deity can exist in an alternative time frame.

I assume that you are saying that it's only hypothetical, and that
I can't prove that an agent is in a different frame of reference that perceives our future.

I don't think it's even an hypothesis, you've just made a bare claim and tacked it onto relativity.

I have no need of proving such an agent exists.

Why do theists keep saying this in between rafts of unevidenced claims?

It's enough to demonstrate that your notion of it being impossible to know a future event is incorrect.

I never made that claim, yet again, why you keep repeating this claim when I have told you every single time you do it's not mine only you can know? I don't believe your claim, as you have zero evidence for it, you just tried to tack it onto relativity, as a bare claim.

Theists do this often, "I believe X, scientific fact Y is evidence for X. Flick on any news channel and you'd know this hasn't happened.

That is where this discussion started .. remember?

Nope, it started with you claiming a deity could know the future, and we could still have free will, and then going on to pretend relativity was evidence a deity can exist in an alternative time frame.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nope, it started with you claiming a deity could know the future, and we could still have free will, and then going on to pretend relativity was evidence a deity can exist in an alternative time frame.

I'm not pretending anything.
I did, in fact, many times say that it makes no difference whether a deity is involved or not, but you ignored it.
That is because YOU wanted to make it about "whether a deity exists" rather than discuss the actual subject of whether a fixed future is compatible with free-will.

Anyhow, I have no wish to discuss it with you any more.
You just want to keep repeating the same old "your bare claim that a deity exists.." nonsense.
There is no point discussing with a person who misrepresents what you say.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm not pretending anything.

Well you can't offer any objective evidence for the claim, and the entire scientific world and Einstein seem to have missed the idea that relativity evidences that a deity can exist in a different time frame, which was what you claimed, would you like me to find it and quote it? It was a while back now, but I can probably find it.

I did, in fact, many times say that it makes no difference whether a deity is involved or not, but you ignored it.

Of course, because your claim involved a deity, why shift the goal posts now?

That is because YOU wanted to make it about "whether a deity exists" rather than discuss the actual subject of whether a fixed future is compatible with free-will.

They're not mutually exclusive topics, and again you brought a deity into the discussion, and of course this is a general religious debate forum. If you think your claim has scientific traction I'm sure there are forums dedicated to physics and science where they'd be enthralled at this news.

Anyhow, I have no wish to discuss it with you any more.

Your choice.

You just want to keep repeating the same old "your bare claim that a deity exists.." nonsense.

Well each time you repeat the claim, I point out it is unevidenced, that is not "nonsense" though. It is precisely to the point in a debate forum.

There is no point discussing with a person who misrepresents what you say.

Well I just point it out when you do that, like you relentlessly claiming I have said a deity existing in a different time frame is impossible, when I have never made that claim, and even repeating it again and again, even after I point out I've never made that claim.

 

[syo]

Atheists want something they can measure.

 

[Sheldon]

Atheists want something they can measure.

Straw man fallacy. Theism is a claim, instead of making up straw man fallacies about atheists, why not offer the best most compelling reason you think there is for an extant deity?

 

[syo]

Straw man fallacy. Theism is a claim, instead of making up straw man fallacies about atheists, why not offer the best most compelling reason you think there is for an extant deity?

Ok.
A real deity is what atheists can't measure.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok.
A real deity is what atheists can't measure.

How is that a compelling reason to believe in a deity?

 

[Trailblazer]

Atheists want something they can measure.

and unfortunately for them God is not measurable.

 

[syo]

How is that a compelling reason to believe in a deity?

It's not. Believing in deities isn't obligatory.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Bible is God's Word but it has long since been renewed.

Those born-again types of Christians think that Judaism was the only other true religion, and that they renewed it. But they don't see that what they believe Jesus did as needing renewing. Especially religions like Islam and the Baha'i Faith that bring in a bunch of laws. They believe the problem was separation from God because of sin. And since Jesus paid the penalty for sin, all a person needs to do is accept the free gift of salvation and forgiveness.

But then comes the fine print. There are costs involved. Obedience, to of all things, a bunch of Christian rules. But trying to follow the rules isn't what saves you. Giving your life to Jesus saves you, and then you're supposed to follow the rules because it's the right thing to do. And to those Christians, no one is expected to follow the rules perfectly. And that's their point... no matter how hard a person tries, they can't keep God's laws perfectly. So, everybody is guilty of sinning, and the only way to be forgiven is through Jesus. Nothing needs to be renewed... to them.

 

[Sheldon]

and unfortunately for them God is not measurable.

And you know this how?

Parenthetically, it's hard to imagine a non-existent thing, that IS measurable.

 

[Sheldon]

why not offer the best most compelling reason you think there is for an extant deity?

Ok.
A real deity is what atheists can't measure.

How is that a compelling reason to believe in a deity?

It's not. Believing in deities isn't obligatory.

I don't think debate is for you? Just read that exchange.

 

[syo]

I don't think debate is for you? Just read that exchange.

Nah, it's not.

 

[Sheldon]

Nah, it's not.

So you're in a debate forum to troll?

 

[syo]

So you're in a debate forum to troll?

I'm a weak debater, but I'm not troll. I think.

 

[Trailblazer]

Those born-again types of Christians think that Judaism was the only other true religion, and that they renewed it. But they don't see that what they believe Jesus did as needing renewing. Especially religions like Islam and the Baha'i Faith that bring in a bunch of laws. They believe the problem was separation from God because of sin. And since Jesus paid the penalty for sin, all a person needs to do is accept the free gift of salvation and forgiveness.

But then comes the fine print. There are costs involved. Obedience, to of all things, a bunch of Christian rules. But trying to follow the rules isn't what saves you. Giving your life to Jesus saves you, and then you're supposed to follow the rules because it's the right thing to do. And to those Christians, no one is expected to follow the rules perfectly. And that's their point... no matter how hard a person tries, they can't keep God's laws perfectly. So, everybody is guilty of sinning, and the only way to be forgiven is through Jesus. Nothing needs to be renewed... to them.

I see you have Christianity down pat, but maybe that is because you hear it here and from your family.
Nothing needs to be renewed... not to them of course, but according to God.

On another related note, Islam is going to overtake Christianity by the middle of this century, so the Christians might as well face it. Islam is not going away.

Since you like religious history I think you will like this short video.

World Religions Ranking - Population Growth by Religion (1800-2100)