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

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know that, "Most theists do not try to reason rationally"?

Experience.

 

[ppp]

I have no idea.

Then how do you know that the Holy Spirit guides you? What I mean is, how can you tell the difference between your being correct and your being incorrect?

 

[Sheldon]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God or higher beings. It is a belief. A belief that is in fact, dependent on the idea that there is the possibility of a God or higher being. It's an oxymoron and contradiction of itself.

No it's not.

Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[Sheldon]

Why would an atheist be on a religion forum, unless there was something they needed to say regarding the matter? A disbelief would be represented in action, by an ignoring of the matter altogether. I have friends who are of that mindset, and they do not claim atheist. They claim to, "Not give a f-word". You believe what you will though.

He never claimed atheists can't or don't sometimes hold a belief there is no deity. Atheism is the lack or absence of a belief in any deity or deities, and some atheists also believe no deity exists.

It's odd but theists often berate atheists on here for not bothering to learn enough about their particular religion, then other theists suggest we shouldn't be here at all, as you have done here. I don't care as this is a public forum, and religions wield influence in the real world, and some of it can be pernicious, so I'm minded to challenge it. However if theists keep their beliefs to themselves, and they're innocuous, I generally don't seek them out to challenge their beliefs. I don't think many theists can say that much.

I have never heard an atheist gleefully contemplate theists being tortured forever after they die, and many of them will if Hell were real. Luckily I don't believe it is, since there is no objective evidence to support the claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

You tell us that God delivered a spoken message to MrB. Why would we believe you?

You shouldn't believe me because I am not the one who got the message.

 

[samtonga43]

You shouldn't believe me because I am not the one who got the message.

Read what I said again, and think.

 

[Tiberius]

I have no problem because I can think logically.

The writings are not the evidence but we read about the evidence in books (writings)....

Who cares?

I don't want to read what someone else has written about the evidence, I want to see the evidence for myself.

Show me the evidence.

How do you think anyone can know what the evidence is if they do not read about it? They cannot find out any other way except by talking to people, but that is not the best way because there is no way to know the person you are talking to knows what they are talking about.

Do you want to read about the evidence, or do you want to see the evidence for yourself?

I, personally, want to see the evidence for myself, so stop with this nonsense of reading about the evidence.

Case in point: How do anyone can know anything about God or Jesus? We read it in writings, in a book called the Bible.

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

Why would 'anyone else' be better able to present the evidence for the claim than the claimant?

Case in point: I claim to have a new red car so I am the claimant. I know I have a new red car. I am the one who can present the evidence for the claim, which is the new red car, since I am the one who has the new red car.

Maybe I told Joe that I have a new red car but if he told you I have a new red car why would you believe him? Only I have the evidence to prove that I have the new red car because I am the one who has the new red car.

Ah, so then you accept the evidence I provided in post 5547? After all, who is better able to present the evidence that I can turn into a fire breathing dragon than me, the person who actually undergoes the transformation?

If people actually witnessed the transformation that would be evidence to them that your claim to be able to turn into a dragon is a true claim but how would that be evidence to anyone else?

Thousands of people witnessed the martyrdom of the Bab and a miracle was believed to have taken place. The martyrdom was written about in newspapers of that time and is now recorded in books and articles. You can read about that and it might constitute evidence for you that the Bab was a Messenger of God. However, you cannot witness it yourself, so you would have to 'believe' what others wrote.

If the accounts of people who witnessed the miracle you speak of are enough to be convincing, then why can't my account of transforming into a dragon be equally convincing?

It is a problem for you and people like you, but it is not a problem for those of us who have looked at the evidence that led us to believe the claim is true.

This, of course, requires that a man actually provides the evidence that he really was speaking to God.

Tell me what this evidence consists of, and I'll provide it for myself.

You should be suspicious of such a claim but the evidence either supports the claim or it does not support the claim.

And we should test the evidence to make sure that it's valid and not just our wishful thinking, right?

What you wrote claiming to be a giant, fire-breathing dragon is not evidence, not anymore than what Baha'ullah wrote claiming to be a Messenger of God is evidence that supports the claim.

Baha'u'llah made claims in His Writings. Otherwise there would be NO WAY for anyone to know who He was claiming to be. This is logic 101 stuff.

However, the claims in His Writings ARE NOT the evidence that support His claims.

The evidence is as follows:

1. His own Self, who He was, His character (His qualities)

2. His Revelation, what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)

3. His Writings are additional evidence because they show who He was as a person, what He taught about God and other things, and what accomplished on His mission.

How many times do I have to repeat this for you to finally understand it? I cannot do this much longer. You are either going to understand what I am saying or not. Thus far there is no indication that you are understanding.

You try to lecture me on Logic 101?

That's rich, considering you have just failed it.

Let's have a look at what you wrote:

First, you said, "However, the claims in His Writings ARE NOT the evidence that support His claims."

You are very clear here. Mr B's writings are in no way part of the evidence to support his claims. His writings are just the claims.

But then you say, "3. His Writings are additional evidence..."

So, which is it? You can't say that his writings are NOT evidence and then turn around and say that his writings ARE evidence. This makes about as much sense as saying, "The shape I have drawn on this piece of paper is a square," and then immediately saying it's perfectly circular.

it seems you are the one who needs to study Logic 101.

 

[Tiberius]

That is something you have to determine for yourself, but you cannot make that determination without reading about Baha'u'llah and what He did on His mission. Otherwise you'd be flying blind.

If I make the determination for myself using just my opinion, there is the risk that I could let subconscious biases influence me.

How should I ensure that doesn't happen?

 

[Tiberius]

I am making no claims since I have nothing to claim.

I've already made iot clear that if you say something like, "Mr B was a messenger from God," I'll be taking it as a claim, since you would be claiming he was a messenger from God. Your attempts to weasel out of taking responsibility for your words are immature and transparent, and I'm not playing that kind of childish game.

If you don't want it to be seen as making a claim, then don't say it.

If you say it, it will be taken as a claim.

(And naturally, I'm not talking about that one specific example, I'm talking about any such thing you say.)

It does not withstand YOUR scrutiny but it does does mean it does not withstand ANY actual scrutiny.

Only if you (a general "you" here, I'm not referring specifically to you in particular) aren't rigorous in your scrutiny.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who cares?

I don't want to read what someone else has written about the evidence, I want to see the evidence for myself.

Show me the evidence.

Do you want to read about the evidence, or do you want to see the evidence for yourself?

I, personally, want to see the evidence for myself, so stop with this nonsense of reading about the evidence.

How do you think you are going to SEE the evidence for yourself, go back through a time tunnel and live in the 19th century and talk to Baha'u'llah in person?

What I want is irrelevant. Unless you can book a flight to heaven and talk to Baha'u'llah the only way you are going to SEE the evidence is by reading about it in books.

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

The Bible has claims in it but it is also the evidence that supports the claim.
There is no other evidence of Jesus except what is written in the NT.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah, so then you accept the evidence I provided in post 5547? After all, who is better able to present the evidence that I can turn into a fire breathing dragon than me, the person who actually undergoes the transformation?

No, I do not accept your evidence because you have no evidence. All you have is a claim and you have offered no evidence to support your claim.

If the accounts of people who witnessed the miracle you speak of are enough to be convincing, then why can't my account of transforming into a dragon be equally convincing?

All you have is a claim. You have no witnesses.

This, of course, requires that a man actually provides the evidence that he really was speaking to God.

Tell me what this evidence consists of, and I'll provide it for myself.

You want proof that He spoke to God, not evidence, and there is no proof, as I have told you numerous times.

And we should test the evidence to make sure that it's valid and not just our wishful thinking, right?

You should put the evidence to the test and I already told you how to do that.

So, which is it? You can't say that his writings are NOT evidence and then turn around and say that his writings ARE evidence. This makes about as much sense as saying, "The shape I have drawn on this piece of paper is a square," and then immediately saying it's perfectly circular.

I am sorry that you do not understand it.
There are claims in the Writings but the claims that are in the Writings are not the evidence.
The Writings of Baha'u'llah in their entirety are 'part' of the evidence that indicate that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God just like the writings of a novelist who has written many bestsellers is evidence that the author is a good author.

 

[Trailblazer]

If I make the determination for myself using just my opinion, there is the risk that I could let subconscious biases influence me.

How should I ensure that doesn't happen?

Our subconscious biases influence everything we do all the time. There is no way to ensure that does not happen, but even if your subconscious biases influenced you that does not mean that you will not make the correct determination.

If you are 'aware' of what your biases are you can try to compensate for them as you do your research.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've already made it clear that if you say something like, "Mr B was a messenger from God," I'll be taking it as a claim, since you would be claiming he was a messenger from God. Your attempts to weasel out of taking responsibility for your words are immature and transparent, and I'm not playing that kind of childish game.

The only one here playing a childish game is you, by insisting that I am making a claim, as if it matters.

You can think it is a claim if you want to, it is no skin off my nose. Claim is just a word.
I do not care how people on a forum see me, I only care about how God sees me.

If you don't want it to be seen as making a claim, then don't say it.

If you say it, it will be taken as a claim.

(And naturally, I'm not talking about that one specific example, I'm talking about any such thing you say.)

Everything a person SAYS is not a CLAIM.

Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
say means - Google Search

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Only if you (a general "you" here, I'm not referring specifically to you in particular) aren't rigorous in your scrutiny.

I am rigorous in my scrutiny. My boss knows that only too well, since I never make any mistakes in my work since I scrutinize it so well.

 

[ppp]

I am rigorous in my scrutiny. My boss knows that only too well, since I never make any mistakes in my work since I scrutinize it so well.

By context, I believe that he means that you are not rigorous on this site. Not in your work.

I do not care how people on a forum see me, I only care about how God sees me.

And yet you spent the rest of that entire post going on about claims. Not to mention the dozens if not hundreds of other posts where you do likewise. People who do not care what others think generally do put so very much effort into telling them that what they think is wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

How do you think you are going to SEE the evidence for yourself, go back through a time tunnel and live in the 19th century and talk to Baha'u'llah in person?

Are you saying that's the only way to get it?

What I want is irrelevant. Unless you can book a flight to heaven and talk to Baha'u'llah the only way you are going to SEE the evidence is by reading about it in books.

But anyone can write anything, can't they?

So simply READING that evidence exists means absolutely nothing if we can't examine that evidence for ourselves.

The Bible has claims in it but it is also the evidence that supports the claim.

If a source can be the claim as well as the evidence, then there is evidence to support the claim I can turn into a fire breathing dragon, as I explained in post 5547.

There is no other evidence of Jesus except what is written in the NT.

Hence I have concluded that Jesus as described in the Bible did not actually exist.

 

[Tiberius]

No, I do not accept your evidence because you have no evidence. All you have is a claim and you have offered no evidence to support your claim.

Who better than me to provide the evidence that I can turn into a dragon?

Or do you say that just because something is written is not enough for it to be actual evidence?

All you have is a claim. You have no witnesses.

I do have witnesses. According to the writing I presented in post 5547, there HAVE been witnesses to my transformation. I even posed for a photo with @Mark Charles Compton while in my dragon form, something which I'm sure he will be happy to confirm.

You want proof that He spoke to God, not evidence, and there is no proof, as I have told you numerous times.

I want EVIDENCE, and there is no evidence that can't be explained with a non-God explanation.

You should put the evidence to the test and I already told you how to do that.

Your testing is insufficient to verify it.

I am sorry that you do not understand it.
There are claims in the Writings but the claims that are in the Writings are not the evidence.
The Writings of Baha'u'llah in their entirety are 'part' of the evidence that indicate that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God just like the writings of a novelist who has written many bestsellers is evidence that the author is a good author.

Absolute garbage. Let's say there is a novelist who has had many best sellers. Those bestsellers are NOT the claim that the author is a good author!

Mr B's writings are the claim, and they can not be presented in any way as evidence to support the claim. If you are going to try to argue that parts of the writings can be claim and parts can be evidence for the claim, then I'll ONCE AGAIN point out that my post 5547 is part claim and part evidence to support that claim, and thus you should accept that I can turn into a dragon for the same reason that you accept that Mr B was a messenger from God.

 

[Tiberius]

Our subconscious biases influence everything we do all the time. There is no way to ensure that does not happen, but even if your subconscious biases influenced you that does not mean that you will not make the correct determination.

But it's no guarantee that I WILL make the correct determination.

If you are 'aware' of what your biases are you can try to compensate for them as you do your research.

Would you care to explain for everyone how a person can be aware of their subconscious biases?

 

[Tiberius]

The only one here playing a childish game is you, by insisting that I am making a claim, as if it matters.

You can think it is a claim if you want to, it is no skin off my nose. Claim is just a word.
I do not care how people on a forum see me, I only care about how God sees me.

I'm not the only person who has called you out on this.

Everything a person SAYS is not a CLAIM.

Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
say means - Google Search

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

And you have many times asserted that something is the case. You have asserted that Mr B WAS a messenger of God, you have asserted that you HAVE proven your beliefs...

I am rigorous in my scrutiny. My boss knows that only too well, since I never make any mistakes in my work since I scrutinize it so well.

So what? Just because you are rigorous in one area doesn't mean you are rigorous in all areas.

 

[Trailblazer]

By context, I believe that he means that you are not rigorous on this site. Not in your work.

Why would I be rigorous in my work and not rigorous in scrutinizing my religious beliefs?

And yet you spent the rest of that entire post going on about claims. Not to mention the dozens if not hundreds of other posts where you do likewise. People who do not care what others think generally do put so very much effort into telling them that what they think is wrong.

Who has been going on about how I am making claims? Not me. I simply defend myself from false accusations because it is an injustice to accuse people of what they are not doing.

But that does not mean I 'care' what others think. I could not care less.