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

[Trailblazer]

So look at that list, and tell me why you still think that our "interest" in religion is "odd."

Because as you ought to know, it's important to understand your enemy.

I agree and I never thought of it that way, but that is not what is happening on this forum. On this forum "some" atheists are making believers into enemies. Atheists are not my enemies but some atheists cannot see believers as anything but a enemy. They always have to be right so that means believers have to be wrong. I did not need to get an MA in psychology to figure this out. It is basic psychology.

 

[F1fan]

What objective evidence do you use?
I bring objective evidence all the time.

Over and over you admit your evidence is only what convinced you. That it hasn't convinced others proves it isn't objective.

So you make another bogus claim here.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is like the definition of "special pleading"!

More special pleading.

God is not subject to logic.

God is, has always been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. That is the logical reason why God is not subject to piddly human logical fallacies.

Atheists want God to be subject to logic so they can win arguments. It's so funny. Atheists have no clue what God is and apparently they don't want to know either. They just want to "try to" win arguments but one cannot win an argument when they don't even know anything about the subject matter..

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you question why doctors spend so much time dealing with illness, or teachers with ignorance?
If you hear someone in the pub saying "England won the last 3 World Cups", do you correct them or do you shrug and say "well, it's their opinion"?

How is that related to what I said? Do you have a point to make?

 

[Trailblazer]

Threads about religion are fine. That doesn't explain why you create effectively the same thread over and over.

My threads are not the same. Look at the OPs.

... and then complain about how it turned out, also over and over.

I am not complaining to you, I blame myself for not knowing how this would turn out and I am the one who is paying the price since most of these posts are posted to me and duty calls.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are a number of Buddhist texts foretelling Maitreya. Of these, the most important is the Anāgatavaṃsa (“The Chronicle of the Future [Buddha]”).So does this mean that Baha'is consider this text as true?

I have no idea what other Baha'is consider. I am for the most part an isolated believer, as Baha'is refer to us. I only see other Baha'is on this forum and in my living room!

 

[Trailblazer]

Could of fooled me. You're sure not doing a good job at not spreading the word.

That was never my intention but since I am here and people are asking I might as well capitalize on the opportunity.

I have to look at it that way in order to get through all these posts. Had I ever known this thread would take off like this I never would have posted it but hindsight is 20-20.

 

[Trailblazer]

THIS is special pleading. It is YOU saying God is off limits because it's God, and God is special.

Dream on. God is special because God created the whole Universe.

God is not subject to logic because God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. Any logical person would know that such an entity could not possibly be subject to piddly human logic.

 

[F1fan]

God is not subject to logic.

God isn't a member on the debate forum.

Gods aren't known to exist. There are about 5000 god concepts, any one of them can be debated, including your version.

God is, has always been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. That is the logical reason why God is not subject to piddly human logical fallacies.

This isn't a factual description. Any of these claims can be debated.

Or are you a God and are making a divine law?

Atheists want God to be subject to logic so they can win arguments. It's so funny.

Given your claim above is an error you must be acknowledging that atheists win debates.

Atheists have no clue what God is and apparently they don't want to know either.

With some 5000 gods in human history I suggest it is theists who don't know what God is. Atheists know the claims are not credible, and that is a superior position to belief in an idea that not only lacks evidence, but is contrary to what we know of reality.

They just want to "try to" win arguments but one cannot win an argument when they don't even know anything about the subject matter..

All atheists have to do is ask questions.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is circular reasoning. Messengers are from God, so that proves God exists.

This is absurd and highly flawed.

I suggest you take a course in logic before you say it is flawed.

Are all circular arguments invalid?

No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound. It should be more clear now that this line of reasoning is perfectly valid.Aug 18, 2017

Circular arguments are perfectly valid - THE SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST Why is circular reasoning bad?

Circular arguments are perfectly valid

18th August 2017 by Tim van der Zee

You have likely heard the claim that circular arguments are wrong or incoherent. In this short post I will outline why this is not the case. Circular arguments are perfectly fine; in fact, they can be quite convincing!

Let’s start with perhaps the most famous bad example of a circular argument:

God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God exists.

It is clear that this is circular, as each statement depends on the other to be true. It’s also a bad argument from a logical standpoint, as logical arguments tend to be formulated in “if A than B”, and this formulation is missing here. This emphasizes the other weak aspect of this argumentation: both claims have a rather low prior probability.

Let’s see what happens when we rephrase the above argument to the following:

If the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.

While both claims still have the same very low probability, it is now a more coherent – albeit circular – line of reasoning. Is there anything wrong with these arguments because they are circular? No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.

http://www.timvanderzee.com/circular-arguments/

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, then God exists.

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true

 

[F1fan]

Dream on. God is special because God created the whole Universe.

Who says?

God is not subject to logic because God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. Any logical person would know that such an entity could not possibly be subject to piddly human logic.

OK, have God become a member and assert this itself.

Until then you are representing God, and given you are a fallible mortal and could be mistaken, I'm not convinced you are telling the truth.

How do we know you aren't bluffing us?

 

[Trailblazer]

You need to have skill to recognize self-deception. Most will justify belief in what they want to believe in, and not really subject their desires to adequate scrutiny like others in debate will do. That you face a lot of critique suggests you allow belief with dubious evidence, and it appears to be self-verified. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You need to have skill to recognize self-deception. Most will justify non-belief in what they don't want to believe in, and not really subject their desires to adequate scrutiny like others in debate will do.

That I face a lot of critique suggests that there a numbered few atheists who don't do anything but criticize believers.

 

[Trailblazer]

So if it's just up to individuals then I take it you have no problem that most everyone else doesn't think it's valid.

That is exactly right. Why would I care what others think?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is proven to me.

Do you understand the point I'm making?

 

[F1fan]

I suggest you take a course in logic before you say it is flawed.

I've taken several in college. Now lets look at your next comment...

Are all circular arguments invalid?

So why would you lay the groundwork for justifying a circular argument unless you just realized i was right in pointing out your flawed thinking?

No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound. It should be more clear now that this line of reasoning is perfectly valid.Aug 18, 2017

Circular arguments are perfectly valid - THE SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST Why is circular reasoning bad?

Circular arguments are perfectly valid

18th August 2017 by Tim van der Zee

You have likely heard the claim that circular arguments are wrong or incoherent. In this short post I will outline why this is not the case. Circular arguments are perfectly fine; in fact, they can be quite convincing!

Let’s start with perhaps the most famous bad example of a circular argument:

God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God exists.

It is clear that this is circular, as each statement depends on the other to be true. It’s also a bad argument from a logical standpoint, as logical arguments tend to be formulated in “if A than B”, and this formulation is missing here. This emphasizes the other weak aspect of this argumentation: both claims have a rather low prior probability.

Let’s see what happens when we rephrase the above argument to the following:

If the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.

While both claims still have the same very low probability, it is now a more coherent – albeit circular – line of reasoning. Is there anything wrong with these arguments because they are circular? No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.

http://www.timvanderzee.com/circular-arguments/

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Notice the above text has conditions for circular claims that offer no conclusion.

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, then God exists.

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true

IF........

When you state an IF you have unproven premises. So now your claim is that you are uncertain that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. And you are equally uncertain that a God exists.

You now create a burden of proof to demonstrate that God exists. And that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry, but you've already demonstrated that you're not interested in having a discussion using logic and reason. I'm not interested in wasting any more of my time.

So what are the axioms you stand by?

Let me as you giving an example at least thought you speak about logic and reason you so far have not engaged in any.

How about the law of non-contradiction? Or/and PSR?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well if the God is one that some other theist doesn't believe in, then it's going to be a problem.

Why would it be a problem? What people believe is not a problem for God because God has no problems. Only humans have problems.

Your assertion here suggests a very vague agreement among theists. Atheists reject the many diverse claims of gods that theists make. That theists disagree about God suggests that there is uncertainty about what they even think God is. So how certain and confident can theists actually be? Not very much, if they are honest with themselves.

Why would it matter if theists disagree with each other? They will never agree until everyone recognizes Baha'u'llah and realizes that all religions are one religion of one God revealed in successive chapters. That day is coming but you won't see it in your lifetime.

 

[F1fan]

That is exactly right. Why would I care what others think?

Because you are insecure in your faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

An excellent example of a circular claim.

And that does not matter one iota.. Atheists love to use that ploy but it is not going to help them win any arguments because.......

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

 

[Trailblazer]

Because you are insecure in your faith.

NOTHING could be further from the truth, NOTHING.
and that is why I could not care less what other people think of my beliefs.

As if YOU know what I am secure in.