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

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

We don't need to be right -- we just need theists to leave us out of their self-imposed rules. That means, most especially, in formulation of laws.

 

[F1fan]

Nobody should assume any of that. They should take it seriously and research it and then decide if they believe it is true, IF they care to know the truth about God.

No one needs to take ideological concepts and claims, like God and prophets, seriously. And research means what? Does that include researching how humans reason and being wary of the emotional appeal religious concepts have on the human mind? That's what most critical thinkers have learned over the years. You don't seem to have taken reason and logic and understanding the psychology of belief seriously since many of your posts are contrary to this knowledge.

Only once the human mind has the skill to reason, and the knowledge of how it can judge emotionally attractive ideas true despite being irrational, can a mind be able to assess whether there is any truth to God concepts. The "truth about God" tends to be dogma, not a factual description.

It is entertaining for me at times, but I am not like the some of the rest of you. I am a serious person and a serious believer.
God is serious business.

You are like other theists who have invested heavily in your dogma, and as a result can't really assess criticism objectively. You are highly defensive, and even make logical errors after them being out to you, namely the special pleading example you posted right after saying it doesn't apply, your circular reasoning errors, argument from popularity, and quite a few others.

 

[F1fan]

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

No, to say that God cannot be verified is not deliberately ignoring aspects that are unfavorable to my point of view, it is to use logical reasoning because one cannot verify a God that is not on earth to be verified!

Logical fallacies do not apply to God, they are useful only to identify errors in HUMAN reasoning.

They apply to claims and beliefs made by people, including you. So when you make a claim that God is X and this claim is off limits to critique then you are making a logical error. Fallacies relate to the claimant regardless of the content of the claim. God claims are not off limits.

You are correct that logical fallacies do not apply to God because no Gods are known to exist, thus we have no claims by God to assess for logical errors.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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..

Basically then, you're just saying you can make up whatever you want, and everyone should just believe you?

 

[F1fan]

Objective, subjective, these are just words.

No, they are words with specific meanings. And these words and meanings are applied in language a certain way to express true or false statements.

You are trying to rig the game so you can cheat your way out of criticism. You can't make openly false assertions like this and think you help your credibility, nor make you false assertions true.

It is utterly preposterous that everyone would view and interpret the evidence for Baha'u'llah in the same way and thus come to the same conclusions about Him.

No one is proposing this. What is being proposed is that you either provide facts and an objective and coherent argument for the evidence, or admit your beliefs are not well supported by the evidence, and the evidence you do put forth is highly subjective and personal.

Seekers are also enjoined by Baha'u'llah to review evidence objectively - be fair in your judgment was something He wrote in various Tablets. That means we should not be biased but rather we should be fair when we assess the evidence.

Then skilled thinkers are the people you should be listening to, yet you don't like our assessments, so you dismiss the very advice you post here. You can't have it both ways.

 

[PureX]

We don't need to be right -- we just need theists to leave us out of their self-imposed rules. That means, most especially, in formulation of laws.

Sure. But that's a political issue, not a religious one. I could say the exact same thing about capitalists. And I often do. The problem is that too many people vote out of selfishness, as opposed to voting for what's best for the nation and it;s people as whole. We think the right to vote means the right to vote for whatever 'we want'. And we don't even bother to consider how what we want might negatively effect others.

 

[Trailblazer]

Basically then, you're just saying you can make up whatever you want, and everyone should just believe you?

I never said or even implied any such thing.

Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for anything and that is why I have no burden of proof to prove anything to anyone.

"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own."

Independent Investigation of Truth


If you want to know HOW to independently investigate the Truth, you can watch this short video. It is only five minutes long.

 

[PureX]

No, they are words with specific meanings. And these words and meanings are applied in language a certain way to express true or false statements.

You are trying to rig the game so you can cheat your way out of criticism. You can't make openly false assertions like this and think you help your credibility, nor make you false assertions true.


No one is proposing this. What is being proposed is that you either provide facts and an objective and coherent argument for the evidence, or admit your beliefs are not well supported by the evidence, and the evidence you do put forth is highly subjective and personal.


Then skilled thinkers are the people you should be listening to, yet you don't like our assessments, so you dismiss the very advice you post here. You can't have it both ways.

The real problem, here, is a poor and heavily biased interpretation of the "burden of proof" rule. The 'burden' is that the person asserting a truth claim is required to offer the evidence they found to be supporting their assertion, and the criteria by which they deemed that evidence 'proof'. I repeat: ... and the criteria by which THEY DEEMED THAT EVIDENCE TO BE PROOF.

The "burden of proof" rule does not mean that the person asserting a truth claim must prove that claim to the satisfaction of whomever the claim is being asserted. I repeat that: the person asserting a truth claim is not obliged to prove their clam to the satisfaction of the recipients of the claim.

When @Trailblazer asserts the claim that God exists and is as he describes, he is NOT OBLIGED TO PROVE THAT CLAIM TO ANYONE ELSE'S SATISFACTION. He is only obliged to present the evidence that has convinced him of this truth, AND the criteria by which that evidence convinced him.

The rest of us each have our own requirements for what constitutes evidence, and for what evidence will stand as 'proof'. And neither @Trailblazer, nor anyone else, can possibly be expected to meet those infinitely varied and subjective requirements. Such a requirement would be absurd, as it would clearly be impossible.

So @Trailblazer has met his 'burden of proof'. That does not mean he has met YOUR requirements for proof. Nor did it ever imply he was expected to.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God expects, doesn't it make it in need?

No, I do not mean that God expects us to do anything for Him.
I meant that God expects (desires) us to do something for ourselves, for our own benefit. God has no needs of His own.

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

 

[Trailblazer]

There's only one "proven." There are only two possibilities:

- what you're calling "proven for you" isn't actually proven. You're mistaken for considering it "proven for you."

- what you're calling "proven for you" is actually proven. Everyone who doesn't accept it is mistaken for not accepting it.

So which is it?

It is not either one of those.

- what I am calling "proven for me" is actually proven to me. "I believe" everyone who doesn't accept it is mistaken for not accepting it because I believe it is true. However, other people have to prove to themselves that it is true before they will accept it as true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I never said or even implied any such thing.

Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for anything and that is why I have no burden of proof to prove anything to anyone.

"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own."

Independent Investigation of Truth


If you want to know HOW to independently investigate the Truth, you can watch this short video. It is only five minutes long.

What you were essentially saying is that logic doesn't apply to God(s). Which means that anything goes. Including any old thing anybody could think up, because well, logic doesn't apply.

A second problem is that the logic being applied in this thread is being used towards your arguments. As far as I know, you are not a God, so logic still applies there, by your own standards (that I don't accept anyway).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not either one of those.

- what I am calling "proven for me" is actually proven to me.

I take "proven to me" to mean "proven, but I realize it and others don't." Is that what you mean?

"I believe" everyone who doesn't accept it is mistaken for not accepting it because I believe it is true. However, other people have to prove to themselves that it is true before they will accept it as true.

Okay. So you aren't proposing some sort of subjective version of truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

What you were essentially saying is that logic doesn't apply to God(s). Which means that anything goes. Including any old thing anybody could think up, because well, logic doesn't apply.

What I meant is that you cannot analyze God with logic because God is not subject to logical analysis.

God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to piddly human logical analysis. That is totally illogical and irrational. What is absurd is to expect to be able to encapsulate an infinite God with logic. Of course it helps to know something about God before you talk about God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What I meant is that you cannot analyze God with logic because God is not subject to logical analysis.

God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to piddly human logical analysis. That is totally illogical and irrational. What is absurd is to expect to be able to encapsulate an infinite God with logic. Of course it helps to know something about God before you talk about God.

How do you claim to know this?

We live in a logical world. A world that this God supposedly created. But when it comes to this God, we can't use the logic this God gave us to understand this world and this God? Your claim that "it helps to know something about God before you talk about God" is nonsensical as well, since we can't know anything about God. Only through "Messengers of God" who are using human intellect and logic just like everybody else. Intellect and logic that doesn't apply to God according to you. This is nonsensical.

 

[Trailblazer]

We live in a logical world. A world that this God supposedly created. But when it comes to this God, we can't use the logic this God gave us to understand this world and this God?

I never said we cannot use logic to understand this world. Logic is for understanding this world, what is true and what is false, and to identify errors in human thinking, but logic cannot be applied to God.

Your claim that "it helps to know something about God before you talk about God" is nonsensical as well, since we can't know anything about God. Only through "Messengers of God" who are using human intellect and logic just like everybody else. Intellect and logic that doesn't apply to God according to you. This is nonsensical.

We can know 'something' about God from what the Messengers reveal about God. "Messengers of God" are not using human intellect and logic just like everybody else, they have a divine mind so they are different from ordinary human beings.

Baha'is normally refer to the Messengers of God as Manifestations of God. A Manifestation of God is not an ordinary man. Manifestations of God possess two stations: one is the physical station pertaining to the world of matter, and the other is the spiritual station, born of the substance of God. In other words, one station is that of a human being, and one, of the Divine Reality. It is because they possess both a human and a divine station that they can act as *mediators* between God and man.

Every Manifestation of God is a mirror of God, reflecting God’s Self, God’s Beauty, God’s Might and Glory. All other human beings are to be regarded as mirrors capable of reflecting the glory of these Manifestations Who are themselves the Primary Mirrors of the Divine Being,

The Manifestations of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. Their souls had pre-existence in the spiritual world before their bodies were born in this world, whereas the souls of all humans come into being at the moment of conception. The spiritual world is where They get their special powers from God. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.

 

[Trailblazer]

I take "proven to me" to mean "proven, but I realize it and others don't." Is that what you mean?

I mean I have proven it is true to myself so I believe it is true. I realize it and others don't because they have not done the same investigation I have done, but even if they did the same investigation that does not mean they would believe as I do because all people view the evidence differently.

Okay. So you aren't proposing some sort of subjective version of truth.

No, I am proposing that truth is reality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I never said we cannot use logic to understand this world. Logic is for understanding this world, what is true and what is false, and to identify errors in human thinking, but logic cannot be applied to God.

This is just a repeat that doesn't address what I said.

Humans think about God(s). God(s) suppsedly gave us our human intellect and logic. But you're saying that whatever we think doesn't mean anything because our human thinking and logic don't apply to this God. But then there are Messengers of God that have divine minds and think above human intellect and logic (How? Who knows?) who then relay God's messages to us in logical ways that we understand. And this makes sense to you?

We can know 'something' about God from what the Messengers reveal about God. "Messengers of God" are not using human intellect and logic just like everybody else, they have a divine mind so they are different from ordinary human beings.

Baha'is normally refer to the Messengers of God as Manifestations of God. A Manifestation of God is not an ordinary man. Manifestations of God possess two stations: one is the physical station pertaining to the world of matter, and the other is the spiritual station, born of the substance of God. In other words, one station is that of a human being, and one, of the Divine Reality. It is because they possess both a human and a divine station that they can act as *mediators* between God and man.

Every Manifestation of God is a mirror of God, reflecting God’s Self, God’s Beauty, God’s Might and Glory. All other human beings are to be regarded as mirrors capable of reflecting the glory of these Manifestations Who are themselves the Primary Mirrors of the Divine Being,

The Manifestations of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. Their souls had pre-existence in the spiritual world before their bodies were born in this world, whereas the souls of all humans come into being at the moment of conception. The spiritual world is where They get their special powers from God. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.

And I ask again, how do we know who the Messengers of God are and who are the fakers?
And how do we know said Messengers of God have "divine minds" and "are not using human intellect and logic?" How does that even work?


This just looks like a giant pile of claims with no evidence backing them up.

And what kind of God would set up the world in this way? No God I'm interested in following. If I can't use the logic and reason that this God supposedly gave me since I can't actually use it to find and learn about God, then it sounds to me like this God is kind of a fool.

 

[Trailblazer]

No one needs to take ideological concepts and claims, like God and prophets, seriously.

How do you know what other people need to take seriously?

You cannot speak for other people because you do not know other people, you can only speak for yourself. If you don't want to take God and Prophets seriously that is your choice because you have free will, and it is also the choice of other people to take it seriously.

You are like other theists who have invested heavily in your dogma, and as a result can't really assess criticism objectively. You are highly defensive, and even make logical errors after them being out to you, namely the special pleading example you posted right after saying it doesn't apply, your circular reasoning errors, argument from popularity, and quite a few others.

I am defensive at all. There is no evidence of me being defensive. Answering a post is not being defensive.

Why do you feel a need to point out flaws in other people, does it make you feel superior?
You sure like to criticize me and other people. I wonder if you can see that you have any faults of your own.

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

 

[QuestioningMind]

Believe whatever you want to, it does not affect me in any way. God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, and such a God is not subject to piddly human logic just because atheists want to think they are smart because they know logic. I know logic too, got an A+ in college, so I am logical enough to know that God who is an unknowable being cannot be subject to logic.

With all due respect your analogy using magical pixies is dorky and it only makes atheists look silly when they compare God, the Creator of the Universe, with imaginary characters such as this or others like tooth fairies..

The reason that magical pixies are not subject to verification is because they do not exist but the reason God is not subject to verification is because God is nowhere near earth! What about THAT do you NOT understand? How can you verify a God that is not present to be verified? This is absurd, and that is why we are enjoined to verify the Messenger of God who was on earth, and as such we have information about Him.

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

No, to say that God cannot be verified is not deliberately ignoring aspects that are unfavorable to my point of view, it is to use logical reasoning because one cannot verify a God that is not on earth to be verified!

Logical fallacies do not apply to God, they are useful only to identify errors in HUMAN reasoning.

What you just said is illogical on its face. Just because you make one exception that does not mean that you would have to make any other exceptions. I verify everything before I make any decisions, but these are related to people on earth and material things that CAN be verified! I mean I do not just pick a contractor to work on my house unless I have verified him thoroughly. I got nine bids for a new roof and everyone thought that was a bit overboard but I got the best man and the best roof and the best price so it was worth all the time and trouble it took.

Anyhow, I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am just trying to employ reason. the day that atheists finally realize that God is the exception to all the rules is the day there might be hope for them believing in God. Maybe that is why I start so many God threads. I love logic and reason. I don't always like God so much but that is another story.

With all due respect your analogy using magical pixies is dorky and it only makes atheists look silly when they compare God, the Creator of the Universe, with imaginary characters such as this or others like tooth fairies..

With all due respect it demonstrates PERFECTLY just how 'dorky' your own claim is. There is EXACTLY as much reason to believe in my dorky magical pixies as there is to believe in your dorky creator god. The ONLY argument you have is a blatant example of SPECIAL PLEADING (you got an A+ in logic? LOL from your reasoning here I'd say it was closer to an F) and that logical fallacy can be used by my magical pixies JUST AS EFFECTIVELY.

So I guess I understand why you 'pretend' to not understand analogies and think that you can use special pleading in order to use a logical fallacy. You're clearly embarrassed that your special god being is no more reasonable than the tooth fairy and you're desperate to pretend otherwise.

 

[Trailblazer]

They apply to claims and beliefs made by people, including you. So when you make a claim that God is X and this claim is off limits to critique then you are making a logical error.

Logical fallacies apply to how a person reasons, not to what they believe. There is nothing illogical about believing that God exists, not anymore than there is anything illogical about not believing God exists.

If I believe that God is X that is not a logical error, because logic does not apply to religious beliefs. You and other atheists think you can use logic to beat relievers down but it won't work because there is nothing illogical about believing that God exists or in believing that God is X.

Logic does not apply to religious beliefs unless a believer is using an illogical argument for their beliefs and it has never been proven I ever did that. You can say I did it over and over but unless you can show it it is just a personal opinion.