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

[Trailblazer]

now that I've answered your questions, how about you answer mine?

... or to put it another way: can you demonstrate that it would be impossible for someone to meet - or at least appear to meet - all of those criteria and be either a clever charlatan or someone who's sincere but mistaken?

No I cannot demonstrate that but that does not mean there were no Messengers of God who met those criteria.

 

[firedragon]

My apologies... I meant to say if such a being makes an appearance and then proceeds to demonstrate the creation of a universe, THAT would be sufficient evidence. But this proposed creator being didn't even make an appearance as a pink elephant, so I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

I know what you are trying to say, but you are saying it in terms of something possible in your paradigm. Nevermind that.

How do you propose a pink elephant or what ever seemingly magical being demonstrate the creation of a universe lets in a room, a field or anywhere in this world where you can observe it? This is getting at your epistemology.

 

[F1fan]

... or to put it another way: can you demonstrate that it would be impossible for someone to meet - or at least appear to meet - all of those criteria and be either a clever charlatan or someone who's sincere but mistaken?

No I cannot demonstrate...

So we have no reason to think they are authentic. Get back to us when you can verify a messenger is authentic.

 

[Trailblazer]

So we have no reason to think they are authentic. Get back to us when you can verify a messenger is authentic.

Because I cannot demonstrate that to you, you have no reason to think they are authentic?
Why would you need me to demonstrate that to you?
You must think pretty poorly about your own mental capacities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No I cannot demonstrate that but that does not mean there were no Messengers of God who met those criteria.

That's a problem for you, then, since that's what you would need to demonstrate to use "Messengers" to establish the existence of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could assume that if I had wanted to assume it, but instead I investigated the claim for myself and found it to be true, instead of assuming it was either true or false.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

Actually it looks as if you did just that. You keep using flawed evidence as support. You may believe that he was a messenger from God but just because you like him is not evidence.

 

[F1fan]

Because I cannot demonstrate that to you, you have no reason to think they are authentic?

I've never heard of anyone claim there are "messengers of God" except you. You bring them up and insist/imply they are authentic. You claim they are evidence of God. So me, and other critical thinkers, won't just take your word for it. If you can't provide evidence to verify you are correct and truthful, then we reject your fantastic claims.

Do you really think you can post claims and expect us to take your word for it?

Why would you need me to demonstrate that to you?

Because that is how claims are demonstrated true. Do you expect me to just take your word for it?

You must think pretty poorly about your own mental capacities.

More insulting others for asking you to demonstrate your outlandish claims are true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would you need me to demonstrate that to you?

Remember back at the beginning of the thread when you asked what atheists would need for evidence?

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

... so why are you now complaining about atheists telling you what they would need for evidence?

 

[Ludi]

God did provide evidence but I already know that atheists don't consider it evidence, Boy do I know it after 9 years of posting to atheists, day and night!

The hundred million dollar question is what what God provides is not good enough for atheists when it is good enough for everyone else. The other question is what would constitute evidence of God's existence for an atheist, which was the point of my OP.

What if someone could provide many examples of the existence of God based on Scripture, science, and truths, over thousands of years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've never heard of anyone claim there are "messengers of God" except you. You bring them up and insist/imply they are authentic. You claim they are evidence of God. So me, and other critical thinkers, won't just take your word for it. If you can't provide evidence to verify you are correct and truthful, then we reject your fantastic claims.

Do you really think you can post claims and expect us to take your word for it?


Because that is how claims are demonstrated true. Do you expect me to just take your word for it?


More insulting others for asking you to demonstrate your outlandish claims are true.

Oh ye of little faith:

 

[Subduction Zone]

What if someone could provide many examples of the existence of God based on Scripture, science, and truths, over thousands of years.

Scripture is just the claim. And science tends to refute many religious stories. And "truths"? I am not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Trailblazer]

You said you believe God exists, so God can't be proven? So you can't refer to God as if it is real, yes?

I refer to God as if real because I know God exists but how I know is nothing you could ever understand.
I cannot prove what I know to other people nor is that my responsibility.

So if you can't prove a God exists then you can't assert it has any authority or power like you did above.

I meant that I cannot prove that God exists to you or other people. I have proven God exists to myself.

I can assert anything I want to. This is a public forum. If you don’t like what I assert you can ignore me.

You can't have things both ways. Either acknowledge we can't know a god exists and make sure you don't post any details about it, or claim a God exists and go ahead and post all the claims you want (which will be questioned).

You could know that God exists if you looked at the evidence and realized that it is evidence for God’s existence, but obviously that ain’t happening, so you will never know.

Question anything you want to but you will keep getting the same answers so why keep asking?

Then I suggest you don't suck up what is sufficient evidence for you versus what is insufficient for others, because that is you making this all about YOU and what you believe.

Why should care what is sufficient evidence for other people? I am not responsible for what you believe nor am I am your evidence delivery man.

I'm going to ask for evidence until you realize you can't hide behind your belief.

Why do you keep asking for evidence AFTER I have told you what I have for evidence and it is insufficient for you? If this is some kind of game to make me look foolish I consider that childish. I am not into games, I am too busy working.

 

[Trailblazer]

If the evidence needs special interpretation and isn't sufficient for objective thinkers, then there's something wrong with the evidence.

Then I guess there is nothing wrong with the evidence.

Did it create a lot of converts?

Did it look as if I was trying? Was just answering an inquiry.
I could not care less what other people believe since it is not my responsibility.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are making it all up. Or you are repeating what someone else made up.

No, I am just repeating what was revealed by Baha'u'llah.
I know that God ONLY does what He chooses to do because of what Baha'u'llah wrote

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

That is drop dead logical since an omnipotent God would never do anything He does not choose to do since He does not have to.
I love how logical the Writings of Baha'u'llah are, nothing can compare to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I refer to God as if real because I know God exists but how I know is nothing you could ever understand.
I cannot prove what I know to other people nor is that my responsibility.

No, you believe that there is a God.

I meant that I cannot prove that God exists to you or other people. I have proven God exists to myself.

Confirming that you only have a belief. "Proving" to yourself does not mean that you proved God's existence. And if you actually did so you could tell others how you did so.

Here is something that you should realize: Tests that can only appear to confirm but cannot refute provide very very weak evidence. It doe snot prove anything. most of the time.

I can assert anything I want to. This is a public forum. If you don’t like what I assert you can ignore me.

And when you do so others will correct you.

You could know that God exists if you looked at the evidence and realized that it is evidence for God’s existence, but obviously that ain’t happening, so you will never know.

This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. When it comes to a discussion or debate that is a very bad sign.

Question anything you want to but you will keep getting the same answers so why keep asking?

I know it is crazy, but we hope that you will see your errors.

Why should care what is sufficient evidence for other people? I am not responsible for what you believe nor am I am your evidence delivery man.

You are the one that keeps claiming that your beliefs are rational. When you cannot support your beliefs that tells us they are not rational.

Why do you keep asking for evidence AFTER I have told you what I have for evidence and it is insufficient for you? If this is some kind of game to make me look foolish I consider that childish. I am not into games, I am too busy working.

Because rational beliefs are supported by evidence. It is just that simple. If you cannot find proper evidence then your belief is probably not rational.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's a problem for you, then, since that's what you would need to demonstrate to use "Messengers" to establish the existence of God.

It is no problem for me because I have already demonstrated to myself that "Messengers" establish the existence of God.
What I meant is that I cannot demonstrate it to other people.

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually it looks as if you did just that. You keep using flawed evidence as support. You may believe that he was a messenger from God but just because you like him is not evidence.

Who said that I believe I that he was a messenger from God just because I like him?
I never said that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who said that I believe I that he was a messenger from God just because I like him?
I never said that.

Sometimes one does not have to openly say things.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've never heard of anyone claim there are "messengers of God" except you. You bring them up and insist/imply they are authentic. You claim they are evidence of God. So me, and other critical thinkers, won't just take your word for it. If you can't provide evidence to verify you are correct and truthful, then we reject your fantastic claims.

All Baha'is believe in Messengers of God, so do Muslims
Ask me if I care if you reject my beliefs. Why do you think I care?

Do you really think you can post claims and expect us to take your word for it?

No, why would you think that? I could not care less what you believe.

Because that is how claims are demonstrated true. Do you expect me to just take your word for it?

AGAIN, I do not care what you choose to believe.
I made no claims, I only have beliefs. Baha'u'llah made the claims and he backed them up with evidence.

More insulting others for asking you to demonstrate your outlandish claims are true.

That was not an insult. I meant that you must think pretty poorly about your own mental capacities if you do not think you are capable of looking at the claims and the evidence for yourself to determine if they are true, but instead have to rely upon me to prove it to you.

I don't understand atheists. They think they are so intelligent but they have to rely upon believers to prove things to them. That makes no sense.

 

[Trailblazer]

What if someone could provide many examples of the existence of God based on Scripture, science, and truths, over thousands of years.

That would be pretty good evidence.