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

[Tiberius]

It certainly is. The objective evidence is the fruits of the religion. Human behavior and character are something we can see in the world so they are objective.

You are confusing belief in a religion with the factuality of the religion itself.

I am not disputing the claim that religious belief exists.

I am disputing the claim that what is believed is actually real.

I don’t care what you believe. Issues presented by genetic engineering is not among the major problems that humanity is facing in the present age, it is just one very small thing you are interested in. The social and political and economic woes of humanity are all around us and they are very serious.

How have you determined that genetic engineering is not a major issue? It's literally one of the most important technologies available today, covering everything from crops to medicine.

Spiritual truth -- faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy -- is not a point of view. It is a constant that never changes. Whether slavery is acceptable or not is a point of view and it is related to the second part of religion, the Laws of God that refers to the material world and how people are to live. That changes in every age because as the material world changes man needs new teachings and laws that are suited to the present time. I explained all that in post #3998.

I would say that slavery is closely tied to justice - a person who is a slave is not being treated justly, after all. So how can one be a constant and the other simply a point of view?

But that is not what I said. All I said is that it does not make sense to me, period.

And on that basis - that it made no sense to you, you rejected it, did you not?

They become convinced by the evidence.

Maybe they have low standards. Maybe the decide the evidence must be true and so allow themselves to be convinced by it. Maybe they lack the ability to accurately judge the validity of the evidence.

You are cherry picking and making a straw man because you omitted the context. I NEVER SAID it can’t be true because it does not make sense to me.

Yes you did. Allow me to cut and paste your exact words once again. "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."

It makes no sense to you, so you conclude that it is illogical. Since you have concluded it is illogical, you believe that it can't be true. Thus, argument from incredulity.

I am not trying to show you that my position is valid. You have to show yourself if you care to.

No. It is not up to me to support your position.

So you are on a crusade and you are using me to promote your opinions, posting this for the benefit of the innocent bystanders on this forum, so they won’t be taken in by a believer. So much for you saying you want to believe in God.

Woah, hold on there. Where did I ever say I want to believe in God?

I said I want to believe in what is TRUE.

It is your position that true = God, so you apparently confuse the two, but that merely reveals your biases.

I will believe that true = God when I see evidence to support it. So far you have fallen so far short it's not even funny.

People can think for themselves, they don’t need your opinions. Do you really think you are influencing people?

Do you think you are influencing people?

Actually, let me answer that for you.

Yes, you are influencing people.

I used to think that Baha'i was one of the more respectable religious beliefs, concentrating on taking the best parts of different religions. But through you I have seen that it's just the same as all the others, arrogant in its belief that it alone has THE TRUTH (tm) and all other religions are blind and uneducated, yet still, like all other religions, based on the same logical fallacies, appeals to emotion and unprovable assertions that rob it of any and all credibility.

So thank you for opening my eyes.

Baha’is are not trying to elevate the Baha’i Faith above any other Faith, we simply believe it is the religion that is suited for this age in history because it addresses the problems that humanity is facing in this age, not some former age.

That's a laugh. You start by saying that Baha'is don't think Baha'i is better that other religions, then you go on to say why you think Baha'i is better than other religions.

I have no burden to prove anything to you or anyone because I am not trying to prove anything since that is not my job. A prosecutor has a burden to prove the defendant is guilty because that is his job.

Yeah, you don't actually know how debates on the net work, do you?

You are responsible for supporting the position you hold. If you do not support it, expect it to be laughed at and ridiculed.

There is nothing to study because atheism is not a religion, it is simply a position. I know all the reasons to be an atheist and I would be one if I was not a Bahai, given I don’t even love God or believe God loves me. So what do you think I am getting for myself from being a believer?

Why do believers love God?

Does the Baha'i faith not teach that God loves people?

My support is NOT my opinion. My support is the evidence that supports my belief. What else would I have?

You don't see how it could still be opinion?

Do that if you want to and I will do the same when I see you using fallacious arguments.

Good luck with that.

 

[Tiberius]

I only heard the term agnostic atheist after I came to this forum. Why would you be debating agnostic atheists?

I never said I was debating agnostic atheists.

I said that I have participated in debates for many years regarding religion, and most of the atheists I have met have been agnostic atheists.

I can meet a person without debating them, y'know.

I will say whatever is appropriate to say at the time, according to the context of the discussion.

Sounds to me like you are really saying, "I will say whatever gets me out of having to support my position."

Do you have anything other than opinion to support your belief that I am wrong?

Yeah, your inability to provide support for your position, your reliance on logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, etc...

I did not mean literally wherever you can find it, as in a garbage dump on the internet. What you would find there would not be evidence for a religious belief. I meant wherever you can find VALID evidence from a VALID source.

Ah, and, pray tell, how do you determine if a source is VALID as evidence?

It is unreasonable if you reject the ONLY evidence there is for God, IF you want to believe in God.

Again, why do you assume I WANT to believe in God?

I want to believe the TRUTH. If you can show me that God is the TRUTH, then I will believe in God. So far, you have utterly failed to do so.

I never said the belief is objective. I said there is objective evidence for the belief, but the opinions about that evidence are not entirely objective, they are both objective and subjective.

Then how do you know the belief is accurate?

That believers want to believe it so they convince themselves it is true is just your personal opinion.

Well, it's the only reason I can think of that they would accept flawed arguments.0

That believers’ arguments are flawed is just your personal opinion. My personal opinion that atheist arguments are flawed.

I've yet to see an argument for belief that is NOT flawed. Perhaps you could show me one.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Still doesn't work. Any way you look at it, what you are saying would require information about one point in time travelling to that point's past, and relativity says that can't happen.

Your argument fails every single time.

 

[samtonga43]

No, Wikipedia said that. I just quoted Wikipedia:
The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

I have shown you that this is not true.

a) Betty and Brenda are sisters.
b) Betty and Brenda live in rented apartments.
c) Therefore, all sisters live in rented apartments.

Premise 1: Tb says that c) is true.
Premise 2: To say that c) is true is illogical.
Conclusion: Tb is illogical.

***
You know, before I came here I really thought I would like to know more about your religion.

If what you are presenting here is an accurate description of the various tenets of Bahai, then all I can say is that it is an irrational and uninteresting belief system.

It is so ironic to find someone professing to be interested in logical discussion to be so illogical in so many ways.

It has just occurred to me that all this may be a double bluff.

Hmm...I wonder? Are you a died-in-the-wool atheist making sure that no one in her/his right mind would ever be attracted to the Bahai religion?

If so, you are succeeding!

 

[Trailblazer]

Non sequitur.

Stepping in to intervene is still consistent with free will.

Sure, God could step in and intervene, and He probably does, sometimes but not always.

That is not the way someone treats those who he professes to love.

Why not? Why wouldn’t a loving God allow people to make choices?

Do you have children? Does a parent making their child have a bath turn the child into a robot? If the child said, "You can't make me have a bath, because that would prove you don't care about me having free will," do you think that's just cause for the parent to let the child remain dirty?

That is the fallacy of false equivalence because God is not a human.

Besides that, adult humans are not children so they don’t need God to make them do things. God revealed teachings and laws and humans are perfectly capable of applying those, they don’t need God making them follow the teachings and laws.

I take it that it's just your "evidence" that can't be verified in any objective way, then.

So not evidence at all.

No evidence that you consider evidence.

True.

So please tell me, how do we determine the difference?

If a person hears a voice that they believe is from God, what can we do to find out if it really is from God or if it's just a hallucination?

The only way we can approach this is to look at the Person who made the claim and research everything about him and his character and the history of his mission and read what he wrote.

Oh, come off it. I gave a specific example of this and you went on about how it wasn't meant literally!

Or are you going to say that those parts of religious texts that make specific claims about what religion could do are all meant in vague, wishy washy ways, like "religion can make you feel better"?

I am saying that some of what the Messengers of God were able to do have no possible natural explanation so they were miraculous, but that does not mean that all the alleged miracles in the Bible are literally true.

No we don't.

Of course, if you disagree, give an example, being sure to explain in detail how you have determined that there is no possible natural explanation.

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.” Some Answered Questions, p. 101

Funny how what he chooses to do is exactly the same thing that we'd expect to see if he didn't exist at all, isn't it?

Only according to your opinion, what you would expect to see if He existed, but you do not know what He would do IF He existed, that is the problem.

 

[Tiberius]

Sure, God could step in and intervene, and He probably does, sometimes but not always.

And funnily enough, it's always in a way that's completely consistent with God not existing.

Why not? Why wouldn’t a loving God allow people to make choices?

Yeah, let's see how well that holds up when a parent explains why they let their child play on a busy road.

That is the fallacy of false equivalence because God is not a human.

Oh, you always pull this out when it's convenient for you, but never any other times. You just said that a loving God would allow people to make their own choices, but now I say that's the fallacy of false equivalence because humans might do that, but God is not a human.

Besides that, adult humans are not children so they don’t need God to make them do things. God revealed teachings and laws and humans are perfectly capable of applying those, they don’t need God making them follow the teachings and laws.

We're children compared to God, surely.

No evidence that you consider evidence.

Would you care to explain how ANYTHING could be considered valid evidence if there is no objective way to verify the accuracy of it?

The only way we can approach this is to look at the Person who made the claim and research everything about him and his character and the history of his mission and read what he wrote.

But that's not a very good way to do it, is it? Can you guarantee that this is guaranteed to give an accurate answer?

I am saying that some of what the Messengers of God were able to do have no possible natural explanation so they were miraculous, but that does not mean that all the alleged miracles in the Bible are literally true.

Hang on there.

I was talking about two different things here. so don't you go and lump them together and pretend I was talking about just one thing.

You said we do see religious texts make specific claims, and yet when I gave an example of such a claim, you dismissed it as obviously metaphorical.

And the second thing I talked about was how we have never seen anything done by a religious messenger that was impossible to explain by a naturalistic explanation.

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.” Some Answered Questions, p. 101

This is not a specific example of a messenger of God doing something that had no natural explanation.

Only according to your opinion, what you would expect to see if He existed, but you do not know what He would do IF He existed, that is the problem.

But I do know what he would do if he didn't exist - NOTHING. And that's exactly what I see happening.

 

[Trailblazer]

And funnily enough, it's always in a way that's completely consistent with God not existing.

Only because you have certain expectations of what God would do if God existed. There is NO logical reason to think that God would step in all the time if God existed.

Yeah, let's see how well that holds up when a parent explains why they let their child play on a busy road.

God is not our parent.

Oh, you always pull this out when it's convenient for you, but never any other times.

I bring it up not because it is convenient, but rather because it is logical. God is not a human being so we cannot expect Him to act like a human being.

You just said that a loving God would allow people to make their own choices, but now I say that's the fallacy of false equivalence because humans might do that, but God is not a human.

Please explain why you think that is the fallacy of false equivalence.

We're children compared to God, surely.

That is true in a sense but sense, but since we have a brain, divine guidance, and free will we can take care of ourselves.

Would you care to explain how ANYTHING could be considered valid evidence if there is no objective way to verify the accuracy of it?

Do you want to beat a dead horse? There is a way to verify it in your own mind but I guess you do not trust your own mind.

But that's not a very good way to do it, is it? Can you guarantee that this is guaranteed to give an accurate answer?

No, I cannot guarantee it, because some people come up with the wrong answer. Why do you think there should be a guarantee? Not everyone will recognize the Messenger because that is the way God set it up, so that the true seekers could be separated from those who are not that serious.

Hang on there.

I was talking about two different things here. so don't you go and lump them together and pretend I was talking about just one thing.

You said we do see religious texts make specific claims, and yet when I gave an example of such a claim, you dismissed it as obviously metaphorical.

I know what you are referring to now, but we have already covered that ground. That verse was not intended to be interpreted literally, but you could test it by interpreting it metaphorically and asking Christians if it pans out.

And the second thing I talked about was how we have never seen anything done by a religious messenger that was impossible to explain by a naturalistic explanation.

This is not a specific example of a messenger of God doing something that had no natural explanation.

On this website are some Famous Miracles in the Baha'i Faith:

Famous Miracles in the Baha’i Faith

But I do know what he would do if he didn't exist - NOTHING. And that's exactly what I see happening.

You do not know that God is doing nothing. Just because you cannot SEE God doing anything that does not mean that God is not doing anything. How do you think you could ever SEE what God is doing?

 

[Trailblazer]

You are confusing belief in a religion with the factuality of the religion itself.

I am not disputing the claim that religious belief exists.

I am disputing the claim that what is believed is actually real.

I guess you mean you are disputing whether the claim of the Messenger of God is a true claim.

How have you determined that genetic engineering is not a major issue? It's literally one of the most important technologies available today, covering everything from crops to medicine.

Maybe so but it is not an issue for religion, it is an issue for science.

I would say that slavery is closely tied to justice - a person who is a slave is not being treated justly, after all. So how can one be a constant and the other simply a point of view?

Justice is a constant but what is considered just changes as humanity evolves spiritually and materially. From our perspective in this new age slavery seems unjust but in past ages it was an acceptable practice because of the way people were and the way the world was back then.

And on that basis - that it made no sense to you, you rejected it, did you not?

I will reject what does not make sense to me or at least I will question it until I come to understand it because otherwise I cannot accommodate it in my mind as being true.

Maybe they have low standards. Maybe the decide the evidence must be true and so allow themselves to be convinced by it. Maybe they lack the ability to accurately judge the validity of the evidence.

Maybe, maybe, maybe…. Maybe they have low standards, maybe they have high standards, maybe they lack the ability to accurately judge the evidence or maybe they have the ability to accurately judge the evidence. Anything is possible, but YOU are only responsible for YOUR own abilities, judgments and beliefs.

Yes you did. Allow me to cut and paste your exact words once again. "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."

It makes no sense to you, so you conclude that it is illogical. Since you have concluded it is illogical, you believe that it can't be true. Thus, argument from incredulity.

What I really meant and what I should have said: "That makes no sense to me because that would mean that all the other religions are wrong, and I cannot believe that is true because it is utterly illogical to me."

That is my stance, call it whatever you want to call it.

No. It is not up to me to support your position.

I have supported my position but it is not my responsibility to prove to you that my beliefs are true.

Woah, hold on there. Where did I ever say I want to believe in God?

I said I want to believe in what is TRUE.

It is your position that true = God, so you apparently confuse the two, but that merely reveals your biases.

I do not know exactly what you said and I am not going back looking for it. You know what you said and now I know.

I will believe that true = God when I see evidence to support it. So far you have fallen so far short it's not even funny.

It is not my job to convince you that God exists. That you even think that is what’s funny.

Do you think you are influencing people?

No, and I am not trying to influence anyone.

Actually, let me answer that for you.
Yes, you are influencing people.

You are just one person, not people.

I used to think that Baha'i was one of the more respectable religious beliefs, concentrating on taking the best parts of different religions. But through you I have seen that it's just the same as all the others, arrogant in its belief that it alone has THE TRUTH (tm) and all other religions are blind and uneducated, yet still, like all other religions, based on the same logical fallacies, appeals to emotion and unprovable assertions that rob it of any and all credibility.

So thank you for opening my eyes.

Guess what? I do not care what you believe about the Baha’i Faith or about God’s existence. You cannot blame me for your opinions about the Bahai Faith as you alone are responsible for your own opinions. The Baha’i Faith is a very public religion.

FYI, I left this forum last week for all intents and purposes and I only came back to check and see if I had any alerts. I returned to the other forums I used to post on four years ago before I came here. I did not go there to talk about religion because I am tired of talking about religion, I went there because I have friends there and I am tired of these endless arguments that lead nowhere. Also, those forums are mostly atheists, many of whom DO want to know if God exists so that is where my time is best spent given there is nothing in this life more important than belief in God.

That's a laugh. You start by saying that Baha'is don't think Baha'i is better that other religions, then you go on to say why you think Baha'i is better than other religions.

I did not say anything about better, I said that I believe it is the religion that is suited for this age in history because it addresses the problems that humanity is facing in this age.

Yeah, you don't actually know how debates on the net work, do you?

I am not IN a debate, I already told you that, because I have no desire to win any arguments.

You are responsible for supporting the position you hold. If you do not support it, expect it to be laughed at and ridiculed.

Go on ahead, laugh at me and ridicule me, I don’t need to be here to listen because I have other forums I can post on where I am not ridiculed. Free will works like a charm when I use it to make decisions.

Does the Baha'i faith not teach that God loves people?

It sure does, but I am my own person so I think for myself and come to my own conclusions.

You don't see how it could still be opinion?

So what if it is? Opinion is just a word.

Good luck with that.

I won’t need luck.

 

[Trailblazer]

I never said I was debating agnostic atheists.

I said that I have participated in debates for many years regarding religion, and most of the atheists I have met have been agnostic atheists.

I can meet a person without debating them, y'know.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that.

Sounds to me like you are really saying, "I will say whatever gets me out of having to support my position."

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I meant exactly what I said and nothing more. I have spent more time supporting my position more than any believer on God’s green earth.

Yeah, your inability to provide support for your position, your reliance on logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, etc...

ALL only in your opinion, as you have NO proof of any of that.

Ah, and, pray tell, how do you determine if a source is VALID as evidence?’

Good question. The official Baha'i sources are valid as evidence for the Baha'i Faith because the Baha’is are the ones who know what the Baha’i Faith teaches and that is not biased, it is simply what the Baha’i Faith teaches.

Again, why do you assume I WANT to believe in God?

I want to believe the TRUTH. If you can show me that God is the TRUTH, then I will believe in God. So far, you have utterly failed to do so.

Please note that I said IF you want to believe in God. I was not assuming anything.

It is not my job to show YOU that God is the TRUTH, nothing could be more ludicrous.

Then how do you know the belief is accurate?

You will know when you have done an adequate investigation in an effort to discover the truth. How does a detective know who was the murderer? Sometimes it takes years to find him, and I know that because the only TV program I ever watch is Forensic Files. People who care about the truth will keep looking until they find the truth and they will do whatever it takes.

Well, it's the only reason I can think of that they would accept flawed arguments.

The arguments are only flawed in your personal opinion, I have a different opinion.

I've yet to see an argument for belief that is NOT flawed. Perhaps you could show me one.

The arguments are only flawed in your personal opinion. In my opinion all arguments for atheism are flawed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Isn't belief in G-d "common trivia" according to you?

No.

There are demonstrably correct answers for common trivia.
Whereas with gods, there are only many many many widely different faith based beliefs, with no demonstrability whatsoever.

You might as well ask questions about horoscopes, tarrot readings, healing crystals etc.
There are no demonstrably correct answers there. In fact, all answers will be indistinguishable from wrong answers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You assume that anybody who holds a religious belief is being irrational.

To be fair, that's not an asssumption.

Religious beliefs are faith based.
Faith based beliefs, are beliefs not rooted in evidence.
To believe things without evidence, is not rational.

And the more fantastical the claim being believed, the more irrational it becomes.

So deism is irrational in that it believes that a deity exist and kickstarted the universe. But that is a far less fantastical claim then the beliefs of a YEC for example.
So YEC beliefs are far more irrational then deist beliefs.

But deist beliefs aren't rational, since there's no evidence for it either. But at least it doesn't contradict any existing evidence, so it's far less fantastical then YECism, which not only is not based on evidence, it also contradicts loads of evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's rather amusing. A person has no need of asking the audience if they already know the answer.

That's not what he said.

For example, I might for the life of me not remember what the capital is of Hungary.
But I would be rather comfortable that if I ask 100 people with multiple choice, that the majority of people will get it right. Country capitals are commonly known facts.

Now contrast that for example with some crazy equation from some crazy physics field. Say quantum mechanics. Suppose the question zooms in on one particular crazy variable in that crazy equation and the question is "what does this stand for?".

Now I would be less comfortable asking the audience. This is NOT a commonly known fact.
Instead, I'ld use the "call a friend". And the friend I'ld call, would be a physicist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you suggesting that Christianity spread due to so many gullible people in his time?

How did the roman pantheon spread?
How did scientology spread?
How did hinduism spread?
How did any religion you don't believe in spread?

Yes, people are gullible and easily deceived.
This is why advertising and marketing is a multi-trillion dollar business.
This is why companies like facebook and google manage to capitalize on their use base through personalized ads.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Even if that were true, you could debate the issues in question instead of just repeating "fallacy fallacy fallacy".
It really isn't much of a debate, you know.

When somebody in a debate tries to make his points by invoking fallacies, then there isn't anything to debate.
All one can do is point out the invoked fallacy.

And that, by itself, is enough to reject the point made, as it is being made on false grounds (= the fallacy).

Before a debate can take place, a reasonable point must be made with a reasonable argument.
If all we get are fallacies, all we can do is point them out.

 

[Sheldon]

If God had planned on stepping in God would not have allowed free will in the first place.

Another claim that is a textbook fallacy of circular reasoning, where the conclusion is assumed in the premise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Still doesn't work. Any way you look at it, what you are saying would require information about one point in time travelling to that point's past, and relativity says that can't happen.

Believe what you like.
You have not presented a valid argument.
Relativity states that what we consider to be "the present" only applies to our frame of reference.
..and you just mumble on about point's in time. There IS no absolute definition of "point in time".

 

[Sheldon]

Are you suggesting that Christianity spread due to so many gullible people in his time?

Are you implying there is no evidence that people can be gullible? People choose to deny the fact of species evolution, or believe the moon landings were an elaborate hoax, or that the assassination of JFK was an elaborate conspiracy, or that Donald Trump was cheated out of a second term, etc etc.

"People is dumb".

 

[Sheldon]

When somebody in a debate tries to make his points by invoking fallacies, then there isn't anything to debate.
All one can do is point out the invoked fallacy.

And that, by itself, is enough to reject the point made, as it is being made on false grounds (= the fallacy).

Before a debate can take place, a reasonable point must be made with a reasonable argument.
If all we get are fallacies, all we can do is point them out.

Indeed, and when the same person repeats those fallacies ad nauseum, even after they're explained, the inference is they don't care that they're making irrational claims. When they then go on to claim their belief is rational, and even falsely accuse others of being irrational, again the inference is they are not engaging in honest debate. Like endlessly making claims, and then when those claims are challenged, pretending they are not claims because that person believes them, as if beliefs held without evidence are somehow ringfenced from any burden of proof, and in a debate forum at that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

When somebody in a debate tries to make his points by invoking fallacies, then there isn't anything to debate.

Nonsense.
Most of the OP's I read do not mention fallacies.
Why is it that atheists realise that theists are guilty of fallacies in almost every statement they make, whilst theists actually talk about the subject without calling "fallacy" on every post?

It's all nonsense.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Indeed, and when the same person repeats those fallacies ad nauseum..

"People is dumb" .. I don't know why you bother..
Clearly, atheists are not dumb.
They don't believe in fairy tales like the Bible.