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

[Sheldon]

Policy said: ↑
Argumentum ad populum

Why?

Surely by now this has been explained enough times? An argumentum ad populum fallacy is a bare appeal to numbers. Someone claims they believe X is true, they then cite the number of people who believe X as evidence for that belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

And that is where we disagree. The existence of God is NOT an undisputed fact, it is a religious belief.

Correct.

True! And the existence of God (one of many claims of Bahai messengers) is not a fact that can be objectively verified.

Correct. God can never be objectively verified.
There is no proof that God exists, all we have is evidence, and we either believe because of that evidence or we do not.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would Joseph Smith or Marshall Applewhite lie? What would be their motives?

I do not think they lied, but I think they were deluded in some fashion.

 

[Sheldon]

I do not think they lied, but I think they were deluded in some fashion.

You don't think Joseph Smith lied? The man was a convicted liar, he was convicted of fraud. His chicanery is a matter of record?

 

[Trailblazer]

You don't think Joseph Smith lied? The man was a convicted liar, he was convicted of fraud. His chicanery is a matter of record?

Sorry, I did not know that.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, they are not, rationally speaking, evidence for anyone, because the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

What premises? What conclusion?

Again, not a single one of those objective facts about Mr B lead to the conclusion that he was sent by God.

Not to you.

If you admit that it's subjective opinion, why do you try to pass it off as fact?

I never tried to pass off any of my beliefs as facts, but as a belief it can be true or false. In other words, my subjective opinion could be correct or incorrect.

Yeah, that's just wrong. Let me show you why.

Invalid or poor quality articles... Such as those that have been influenced by the personal biases of the researcher.

Subjecting it to scrutiny... to spot any case of the researcher's personal biases affecting their work. Make it trusted... So we can trust what we are reading is no affected by the personal biases of the researcher...

Yeah, that's just wrong. Let me show you why. God wants our personal opinions about His Messenger which lead to our own beliefs, for which we alone are fully responsible. God does not want someone else's personal opinions. You want to shirk the responsibility to make a decision and put it on someone else's back, but it does not work that way. It is a test given by God we are expected to pass/fail, just like any test given us by a teacher in college. We don't get to ask other opinions from other students during our final exams.

And the quality can be affected if the article is filled with the researcher's personal biases.

You don't understand how science works.

I do understand how science works and it does not work like religion. In religion, God wants our personal opinion, not someone else's personal opinion.

It is a pass/fail test for which we are fully responsible.

On what basis do you think that peer review is unable to detect the biases of the researcher?

That is a totally moot point, because God wants our personal opinions, biases and all.

I, for one, am willing to completely abandon my personal opinions in order to get the objective truth. Aren't you?

If you don't have a personal opinion what are you left with? Nothing. You are so biased that you are completely illogical.

Please, tell me why that situation would not work.

That would never work. No college or university would ever operate that way and you know it. Every student is responsible to the teacher for their own homework and test answers, just as every person is responsible for what they decide to believe about the Messenger of God.

If you get a hundred people to check your work and they all give the same result as you, then yes, it is indeed evidence that you got it right.

But if every single on of the 100 people you get to check your work gets the same answer as you, then that means that they ALL entered the same number the wrong way, and they each got it wrong in the same way! And what are the chances of that? Very small.

Wow! That is a classic case of the fallacy of argumentum ad populum
If a hundred people check my work and think it is right, it must be right!

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

You are completely wrong, because whenever a new religion is revealed there are only a few people who get t right. The Baha'i Faith is a new religion so you can do the math...

The Narrow Way
"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

That is not at all what I was talking about.

I have already explained how the conclusion "Mr B was a messenger from God" does not logically follow from any of the known objective facts about Mr B. Concluding that he was a messenger from God requires the assumption that his writings are completely accurate - which you said was not the case.

When did I ever say that His Writings are not completely accurate?

Yes, I agree that it's absurd to think that a bunch of old stories could ever pass a test designed to determine objective fact.

And the reason for that is because religions is not true and God doesn't exist.

No, the reason is because the scientific method is not the method used to determine the TRUTH of a religion. I have already explained why myriad times and if you still do not understand there is no point repeating myself.

Religion is not an objective fact so how could religion ever pass a test designed to determine objective fact? You are completely devoid of logical reasoning because you are so mired in your biased opinions.

Any method that claims to be able to find the truth should be able to pass any test that weeds out fairytales.

The method is your own Independent Investigation of Truth. God will accept nobody else's personal opinions.

Yes.

Although, before you reply with, "The Bahai faith says they aren't really prophets, so they don't count," you must first prove to me that the Bahai faith alone is the authority capable of making that determination.

I cannot prove that to you. You have to discover it for yourself by doing your own research and making your own determination.

If God is almighty, then surely he could have created us so we could understand everything we need to know at once.

Once again, the religious idea of God being almighty leads to a contradiction that believers must use insane distortions of logic to get out of.

Oh no! Not this again... God is omnipotent so God can do anything, which really translates as....
God is omnipotent so God should do everything I expect God to do.

That is so completely illogical. God is omnipotent so God should do everything for you so you don't have to do a Goddamn thing.

God could have created us so we could understand everything we need to know at once, but God does not want us to know everything at once and that is why God reveals truth in stages, through Messengers who know exactly what we need to know in every age. That is why Jesus said:

John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Baha'u'llah was the Spirit of truth who came to bring the "many things" humans were not ready to hear when Jesus walked the earth.

Says you. There are a lot of people who would say otherwise.

A lot of people? Why would it matter what a lot of people say? Are we going for ad populum again?

Cool story.

No, that is not a story, it is factual. The Bab and Baha’u’llah both appeared in the same age. The Bab was the forerunner who came to announce the coming of Baha''ullah. The Bab had His own religion (the Babi Faith) for about nine years but His purpose was to bridge the gap between Islam and the Baha’i Faith and to prepare the way for Baha’u’llah.

Whether they were actually Messengers of God is a belief, but the rest is factual. If you read some 19th century Persian history and you would know the facts.

 

[Tiberius]

What premises? What conclusion?

It might be better if you don't post your replies until you refresh yourself on the conversation we've been having. If you can't do that simple task, I don't see why I should bother replying to you, since it clearly demonstrates that you are more interested in getting me to waste my time by telling you what we've already covered rather then continuing the discussion.

Of course, I have seen some people who play ignorant and forgetful in an effort to get the other person to give up, but I'm sure YOU wouldn't do that, would you? No, I didn't think so.

So how about you got back and read over the last few posts between us, and then reply to the post again, and we can go from there, okay?

 

[Trailblazer]

It might be better if you don't post your replies until you refresh yourself on the conversation we've been having.

So how about you got back and read over the last few posts between us, and then reply to the post again, and we can go from there, okay?

I already looked back at the previous post so you are creating a straw man when you accuse me of not doing so.

Trailblazer said: Those things are not sufficient evidence for you that He was a Messenger of God, but they are sufficient evidence for those of us who understand the significance of those things and have thus concluded that He was a Messenger of God.

Tiberius said: No, they are not, rationally speaking, evidence for anyone, because the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

Trailblazer said: What premises? What conclusion?

I said that because I have no premises or conclusions since I am not trying to make a logical argument. Logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that religious beliefs are true since they can never be proven true.

 

[samtonga43]

I already looked back at the previous post so you are creating a straw man when you accuse me of not doing so.

When you 'looked back', did you understand what you read there?

Trailblazer said: Those things are not sufficient evidence for you that He was a Messenger of God, but they are sufficient evidence for those of us who understand the significance of those things and have thus concluded that He was a Messenger of God.

Tiberius said: No, they are not, rationally speaking, evidence for anyone, because the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
Trailblazer said: What premises? What conclusion?

Premises
1. Tb has evidence that the B.man was a Messenger of God.
2. Tb understands the significance of this evidence.
Conclusion
The B.man was a Messenger of God.

And round and round we go. Again.

 

[samtonga43]

Tb you say over and over again that people can decide for themselves what to believe about your faith. But this must mean that the evidence is subjective.

After all, can one decide to believe that 2 + 2 = 4?
No?
Why not?

Because it is an objective truth.

 

[PureX]

Tb you say over and over again that people can decide for themselves what to believe about your faith. But this must mean that the evidence is subjective.

After all, can one decide to believe that 2 + 2 = 4?
No?
Why not?

Because it is an objective truth.

We choose to believe it all the time. And it is not an objective anything. "2" isn't an object, and neither is "equals". Both are concepts that we choose to apply to what we call "objective reality". And then we choose to ignore all the ways in which the application of these concepts don't actually work. It's all a very subjective process.

 

[Trailblazer]

Premises
1. Tb has evidence that the B.man was a Messenger of God.
2. Tb understands the significance of this evidence.
Conclusion
The B.man was a Messenger of God.

And round and round we go. Again.

Sorry, THAT is not my argument. Why do you continually misrepresent me and make a straw man?

I have no premises or conclusions because I am not making a logical argument since nobody can ever prove that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

I have concluded that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God because of the evidence so I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. It is as simple as that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Tb you say over and over again that people can decide for themselves what to believe about your faith. But this must mean that the evidence is subjective.

No, the evidence is objective but how we interpret it is subjective.

What does objective evidence mean?

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.
What does objective evidence mean?

According to this definition there is evidence for Baha’u’llah because there are facts surrounding the Revelation of Baha'u'llah and one can examine and evaluate those facts.

 

[samtonga43]

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved

But you have no facts that have been proved. If you had proof wouldn't you have presented it?

 

[samtonga43]

Sorry, THAT is not my argument. Why do you continually misrepresent me and make a straw man?

So which part misrepresents what you have been saying -- Premise 1, Premise 2 or the conclusion?

P.1. Tb has evidence that the B.man was a Messenger of God.
P.2. Tb understands the significance of this evidence.
Conclusion
The B.man was a Messenger of God.

Let's remind ourselves of YOUR words:
"Those things are not sufficient evidence for you that He was a Messenger of God, but they are sufficient evidence for those of us who understand the significance of those things and have thus concluded that He was a Messenger of God".

 

[Trailblazer]

But you have no facts that have been proved. If you had proof wouldn't you have presented it?

No, there are no facts that can be proved because historical accounts cannot be proved.

 

[Trailblazer]

So which part misrepresents what you have been saying -- Premise 1, Premise 2 or the conclusion?

P.1. Tb has evidence that the B.man was a Messenger of God.
P.2. Tb understands the significance of this evidence.
Conclusion
The B.man was a Messenger of God.

Let's remind ourselves of YOUR words:
"Those things are not sufficient evidence for you that He was a Messenger of God, but they are sufficient evidence for those of us who understand the significance of those things and have thus concluded that He was a Messenger of God".

What Tb has evidence for and what Tb understands are not premises of any argument...

I have no premises because I am not making a logical argument since nobody can ever prove that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

I have concluded that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God because of the evidence so I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. It is as simple as that.

 

[samtonga43]

What Tb has evidence for and what Tb understands are not premises of any argument...
I have no premises because I am not making a logical argument since nobody can ever prove that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

My argument.
My premises.

P.1. Tb has evidence that the B.man was a Messenger of God.
P.2. Tb understands the significance of this evidence.
Conclusion
The B.man was a Messenger of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

My argument.
My premises.

but not My argument or My premises.

 

[Tiberius]

I already looked back at the previous post so you are creating a straw man when you accuse me of not doing so.

Trailblazer said: Those things are not sufficient evidence for you that He was a Messenger of God, but they are sufficient evidence for those of us who understand the significance of those things and have thus concluded that He was a Messenger of God.

Tiberius said: No, they are not, rationally speaking, evidence for anyone, because the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

Trailblazer said: What premises? What conclusion?

I said that because I have no premises or conclusions since I am not trying to make a logical argument. Logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that religious beliefs are true since they can never be proven true.

Your premise: all the things Mr B could only have been done by a messenger from God.

Your conclusion: Mr B was a messenger from God.