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

[PureX]

Atheists basically created a dilemma for themselves.
If God is not evidenced then they won't believe in God to be saved in accordance to the New Covenant. If on the other hand, God is evidenced such that they can't be saved by faith anymore in accordance to the New Covenant.

A lot of atheists would say that they feel no particular need to be saved, at the moment. And I cannot argue with them because they would certainly know better than I whether or not they need to be saved from anything.

I argue with atheists, often. But not about their personal feeling or their personal choice. If an atheist tells me they choose to believe that no gods exist because they prefer to see themselves living in a godless universe, I have to respect their choice. BECAUSE it's their choice (not mine). Just as my choice to trust in the existence of a benevolent God is my choice, made for my own reasons. Neither one of us knows if or how "God" exists, so all we can do is choose according to our own feelings, wishes, and needs. And I think if theists want their choices to be respected, they have to be willing to do the same for atheists and agnostics.

That doesn't mean we can't still debate our choices, and especially the reasons why we made them, because I think that's healthy. But in the end, we should allow that NONE OF US KNOWS, and so all of us are choosing according to our own needs and desires. It takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist. Even when they insist it's not so.

 

[Ludi]

Then maybe you can find another way. I know a couple of people who were once atheists and they are now believers and they don't believe in Messengers at all. They came to belief in God as a result of crying out to God and getting an answer.

I just also wanted to add in keeping things honest, what I wrote to actually took me a very long time, I just finished it recently. Anyways thanks again.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Atheists basically created a dilemma for themselves.
If God is not evidenced then they won't believe in God to be saved in accordance to the New Covenant. If on the other hand, God is evidenced such that they can't be saved by faith anymore in accordance to the New Covenant.

Spurious argument, premise seems to be an evidenced God can't save -- there's nothing anywhere that makes such a claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hi, I have finished writing out what I said I would concerning proving the existence of God, through science, Scripture, truth, and thousands of years. I had already posted a few things concerning this hoping to start a conversation about it, but after talking to my parents, I now think it's better to just post the whole thing at once. And I just wanted to add this first because it would not be proper to add it to the message, as I want to keep it in a pure form. And I will post this on your board if it is still ok with you, as it was you I made this promise to. Anyways if that is ok just let me know, till then hope everything is good. Thank you and have a great day.

I am just a member, I am not a staff member. You would have to ask the forum staff if it is okay to post what you wrote and which forum you should post it in. I look forward to reading it.

 

[Ludi]

I am just a member, I am not a staff member. You would have to ask the forum staff if it is okay to post what you wrote and which forum you should post it in. I look forward to reading it.

That's a good point, thank you for adding that as I am new to this, and not exactly sure how it all works. Hopefully have it up in a few days. Thanks again, and have a nice day.

 

[F1fan]

You could only know that if you looked at it.

“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

Yet no religious truth has this much clarity and easy to assess evidence. This includes yours. It's these kinds of statements above that claim evidence is so easily available, while any honest person can never find objective evidence as claimed. This is a bluff, a fraud, misleading.

We all see things differently.
There are claims and there is evidence that support the claims.

If a lamp is there any ordinary mortal will see it there shining, and it won't require any special assumptions or mental gymnastics as required by religious claims.

We should ALL see things your way if it was honestly as you describe. It just isn't.

 

[F1fan]

Atheists basically created a dilemma for themselves.
If God is not evidenced then they won't believe in God to be saved in accordance to the New Covenant.

Only IF atheists assume these religious concepts are true and valid. They don't, so salvation is irrelevant.

If on the other hand, God is evidenced such that they can't be saved by faith anymore in accordance to the New Covenant.

If faith saves the person then what point is jesus? The faithful self is who stands in the way of salvation, and if the person decides to be a believer, then they have saved themselves. God and Jesus are just the means to salvation, like tools.

 

[Trailblazer]

You make religious claims on a religious forum, expect criticism of your claims. You are taking this too seriously and personal. That is your responsibility to limit your exposure to critique.

It you criticize me constantly expect criticism of your behavior. That is your responsibility to limit your exposure to critique.

I understand you want to see it this way. But atheists and others are doing very well at explaining your views and thinking are highly flawed.

Yet you can give me no concrete examples of any flawed thinking.

You have never once explained how you have knowledge. What it seems you are doing is embellishing your belief and claiming it's knowledge.

I have explained it dozens of times. You just do not accept my explanations.

Your numerous logical fallacies have been pointed out by many people. It is very clear you are just in denial.

Those are just personal opinions. Nobody ever proved I committed any logical fallacies.

Why would it matter how many people pointed something out?

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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

[Trailblazer]

We should ALL see things your way if it was honestly as you describe. It just ins't.

"We should ALL see things your way if....." Nothing could be more illogical.

 

[F1fan]

.



Just look at the easily-controlled mushbrained snowflakes and millennials running around who've lost their grip on reality because they're victims of the corrupt establishment which wants to control people.

Who are you referring to? Give examples.

The "Establishment" is politicians, TV and film producers, teachers etc.
Christians however, can't be controlled which is why the estab hates Christianity..

The vast majority of the "establishment" are Christians. So your claim here is absurd.

 

[F1fan]

It you criticize me constantly expect criticism of your behavior. That is your responsibility to limit your exposure to critique.

When your ideas are criticized you must be taking it personally.

Yet you can give me no concrete examples of any flawed thinking.

Your claim that God is off limits because God is special was a response to your fallacy of special pleading. THAT itself is an excellent example of special pleading, which me and others pointed out. I also pointed out your circular reasoning flaws. I pointed out your argument from popularity flaws. There have been many more. But this short list in enough to prove your claim wrong.

I have explained it dozens of times. You just do not accept my explanations.

Because your explanations fall short of what is accepted as being knowledge. Everyone agrees with me on this.

Those are just personal opinions. Nobody ever proved I committed any logical fallacies.

Actually many have. Your special pleading fiasco is perhaps your worse failure.

Why would it matter how many people pointed something out?

Because they were correct, and the more you deny your flaws the more incorrect you become.

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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

This applies to claims that are believed true because many others believe it. It doens't apply to a set of educated and skilled thinkers who are correct in their assessment of your fallacies.

 

[F1fan]

"We should ALL see things your way if....." Nothing could be more illogical.

The fact remains that you offer no clear evidence that any ordinary person can see or understand. Your evidence requires a lot of assumption and special interpretation. It's just isn't good enough. And it certainly isn't anything as obvious as a lamp in the other room, is it?

 

[Trailblazer]

The fact remains that you offer no clear evidence that any ordinary person can see or understand. Your evidence requires a lot of assumption and special interpretation. It's just isn't good enough. And it certainly isn't anything as obvious as a lamp in the other room, is it?

You are right, it is not something an ordinary person can see or understand, but why should it be?
But that is not because there is not good evidence, there are other reasons why everyone cannot see it.

The lamp quote was just to make a point, it was not to be taken literally. Of course everyone won't see it, the point is that it is possible to see it if you go into the room but IMpossible to see it if you don't go into the room.

 

[Trailblazer]

When your ideas are criticized you must be taking it personally.

No, I only take it personally when *I* am criticized. I don’t care what anyone says about my beliefs or ideas.

Your claim that God is off limits because God is special was a response to your fallacy of special pleading. THAT itself is an excellent example of special pleading, which me and others pointed out. I also pointed out your circular reasoning flaws. I pointed out your argument from popularity flaws. There have been many more. But this short list in enough to prove your claim wrong.

That is not special pleading on my part. It is special pleading when atheists ignore aspects of God that they want to deny, things that make God special and different than any human. THAT is special pleading.

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

Numerous times I addressed the accusation that I used circular reasoning and explained why that does not invalidate my argument for Baha’u’llah as a Messenger of God.

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.

Because your explanations fall short of what is accepted as being knowledge. Everyone agrees with me on this.

Knowledge has been defined by those who are objective, whereas your definition is biased against religious believers. b(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something is the kind of knowledge tat I have.

Definition of knowledge

1a(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding answered to the best of my knowledge

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

“Everyone agrees with me on this” so it must be true. You mean some atheists agree with you, not everyone. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Actually many have. Your special pleading fiasco is perhaps your worse failure.

Your special pleading is perhaps your worst failure in reasoning.

“Many have.” You keep committing the same fallacy, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

Why would it matter how many people pointed something out?

Because they were correct, and the more you deny your flaws the more incorrect you become.

They were correct only in your personal opinion. We all have personal opinions.

This applies to claims that are believed true because many others believe it. It doesn't apply to a set of educated and skilled thinkers who are correct in their assessment of your fallacies.

It applies whenever you say something is true about what I said because “many people” believe it.

“a set of educated and skilled thinkers who are correct in their assessment of your fallacies.”

Do you mean people like you?

 

[Dropship]

.
Just look at the easily-controlled mushbrained snowflakes and millennials running around who've lost their grip on reality because they're victims of the corrupt establishment which wants to control people.
The "Establishment" is politicians, TV and film producers, teachers etc.
Christians however, can't be controlled which is why the estab hates Christianity..

Who are you referring to? Give examples.
The vast majority of the "establishment" are Christians. So your claim here is absurd.

The "Establishment" are the sick controlling authorities, they and their lackeys hate Christianity because it's onto all their sly little tricks..

Paul said "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil.." (Eph 6:12)

 

[HonestJoe]

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

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

That isn't the circular part. The circular part is where you use Baha’u’llah's own words and definitions to determine whether Baha’u’llah is a Messenger of God. He is basically saying "A Messenger of God is a person like me and therefore I am a Messenger of God.".

What you'd actually need to support this premise would be some kind of evidence independent of the Messengers words themselves. You render this pretty much impossible though, because you've declared God as unknowable other than via his Messengers.

 

[ratiocinator]

The "Establishment" are the sick controlling authorities, they and their lackeys hate Christianity because it's onto all their sly little tricks..

Baseless assertion. Where is the evidence?

Paul said...

Who cares? You still don't seem to get that your 'holy book' is not going to impress anybody who doesn't already share your belief that it is authoritative.

 

[Dropship]

You still don't seem to get that your 'holy book' is not going to impress anybody who doesn't already share your belief that it is authoritative.

Try thinking outside the box in modern terms mate, Jesus was technically an alien visitor ("I am not of this world") and had knowldege of a superscience ("If you do not believe me, believe the miracles"), so it follows that all open-minded truthseekers will want to listen to him..
How about it Spock?

"Affirmative, I'm all ears"

 

[ratiocinator]

Try thinking outside the box in modern terms mate, Jesus was technically an alien visitor ("I am not of this world") and had knowldege of a superscience ("If you do not believe me, believe the miracles")...

Again you're trying to justify an otherwise totally baseless assertion with quotes from your 'holy book' that other people don't accept as authoritative.

so it follows that all open-minded truthseekers will want to listen to him..
How about it Spock?

Logic really isn't your strong suit, is it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Some religions are forces of evil. They have always brought conflict to the world.