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

[Tiberius]

I do not believe I am wrong about what I believe but the hundred million dollar difference between me and those who tell me I am wrong is that I do not tell other people that they are wrong. I only say "I believe."

You have often said that you KNOW. That's not just a belief.

I am not saying "I'm right and nothing will convince me otherwise" I am saying "I believe." It is not about me being right and others being wrong. It is about my certitude of my beliefs.

Two questions. Please answer with a yes or no.

Do you think your beliefs are right?

Is there anything that could convince you otherwise?

And you already know that there is no such evidence. God tests us, we do not get to test God. That's the breaks.

And that's just what we'd expect the situation to be for an unfalsifiable claim, isn't it? Excuse after excuse to get around why we can't verify any of it.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, atheist's as atheists has nothing in common other than being humans and lack the positive belief in gods.
We can't agree on what testable evidence is if you look closer.

And if you had looked closer, you would have seen that I clearly said, "at least, atheists like me and, I presume, @Subduction Zone."

Example:
Observation of the word "see" is that same for I see a dog and I see that 2+2=4.

No, that's a flawed analogy.

A word that can mean A and B is different to claiming a word means A and never B while someone else says the word means B and never A.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Do you think your beliefs are right?

Is there anything that could convince you otherwise?

No, I have no one methodology for right or wrong. So I use right and wrong differently on different beliefs.

Is there anything that could convince you otherwise?

No, not really when we hit core personality.

I accept that everything is a combination of evidence and the lack of evidence.

 

[joelr]

I can for me combine science and religion. The joke is that in practice we properly can't agree on the limits of science and what religion is.

I don't think that, the doctrine of the Bahai religion is that science and religion must be in harmony. That's what "God" told the prophet in the religion. Then he got a bunch of bad science from God. Whoops.....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And if you had looked closer, you would have seen that I clearly said, "at least, atheists like me and, I presume, @Subduction Zone."



No, that's a flawed analogy.

A word that can mean A and B is different to claiming a word means A and never B while someone else says the word means B and never A.

Correct, but stop using atheists like me. That has nothing to do with atheism as such. You know that!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think that, the doctrine of the Bahai religion is that science and religion must be in harmony. That's what "God" told the prophet in the religion. Then he got a bunch of bad science from God. Whoops.....

Yeah, that is one version of religion. I have tried to do with only science and personal opinions. I can't and I checked different understandings of religion. I fit some and not others.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't think that, the doctrine of the Bahai religion is that science and religion must be in harmony. That's what "God" told the prophet in the religion. Then he got a bunch of bad science from God. Whoops.....

What is that bad science? Feel free to quote Baha’u’llah.

Regards Tony

 

[Tiberius]

No, I have no one methodology for right or wrong. So I use right and wrong differently on different beliefs.




No, not really when we hit core personality.

I accept that everything is a combination of evidence and the lack of evidence.

Well, let's leave aside the fact that I wasn't asking you...

You freely admit you have double standards ("I use right and wrong differently on different beliefs").

 

[Tiberius]

Correct, but stop using atheists like me. That has nothing to do with atheism as such. You know that!

Don't tell me how to communicate my ideas.

I turn to science BECAUSE I reject God and superstition as explanations for why things are the way they are. I also know I am not the only atheists to embrace science for that reason. So don't tell me to not use that when it's perfectly valid.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, let's leave aside the fact that I wasn't asking you...

You freely admit you have double standards ("I use right and wrong differently on different beliefs").

Yes, there is no one methodology for all of the everyday world even for science:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

As for wrong there seems to be different and not same meanings:
Definition of WRONG

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Don't tell me how to communicate my ideas.

I turn to science BECAUSE I reject God and superstition as explanations for why things are the way they are. I also know I am not the only atheists to embrace science for that reason. So don't tell me to not use that when it's perfectly valid.

How subjective of you.

 

[Nimos]

As historian Carrier says:

"When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib."

Jesus was created to preach new updated Judaism which combined things from cultures who recently occupied them. A message sells better when preached by someone who is speaking for God or is God.

Muhammad is a man who claimed to speak with an angel named Gabrielle. This is fiction.

I assume that you are talking about Richard Carrier? Which support the mystics view of Jesus and the bible. Just want to say that a lot of biblical scholars disagree with his views, so Carrier is probably in the minority of what people working in this field believe.

 

[samtonga43]

That is exactly what I predicted you would say.
I guess your reading comprehension is very poor.

Oh, Tb! This is really silly. It is pretty obvious to those reading that Sheldon's reading comprehension is anything but 'poor'. In fact, if you really believe that her/his reading comprehension is very poor, then YOUR reading comprehension must be very poor.
As you say, ad infinitum, Logic 101

Ask me if I care if you consider that to be evidence. When you say "that's not evidence" all you do is show that you cannot reason logically.

This is illogical.

 

[samtonga43]

1. God exists and there is evidence.
2. If there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him.
There is nothing circular about either of those statements.

But there is a false assumption.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

This is illogical.

The joke in these debates is that if it is a fact, that it is illogical, then appears to be how a part of the everyday world works.
And the best answer to that I have found is that world is neither strongly logical nor illogical and in practice we are using different norms.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But there is a false assumption.

Well, maybe. But that is based on other assumptions and there is no way to check different sets of assumptions if they both work in some sense for the everyday world. Because to check assumptions requires assumptions and so on in a meta infinite regress. It has been tried and the test is this:
At least for some accepts of the world can we get away with thinking/feeling differently?
And the answer with critical thinking seems yes. Of course you can answer no, and I can answer yes, and that shows my point is right, if you accept my assumptions.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

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?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

Article of faith based reasoning is not for everyone. Testable falsifiable evidence is the only objective way of proving something to be true. Should the theists offer any, I would look into it. The assertions of self proclaimed spokespeople for God, whether they be found in holy texts or spoken, are not going to cut it. The problem really. Is that the God hypothesis is untestable. There is no observation or experiment I can conduct that would prove or falsify the hypothesis. So. In the end, there is not only no testable evidence for Gods, there is no test that can be made.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Article of faith based reasoning is not for everyone. Testable falsifiable evidence is the only objective way of proving something to be true. Should the theists offer any, I would look into it. The assertions of self proclaimed spokespeople for God, whether they be found in holy texts or spoken, are not going to cut it. The problem really. Is that the God hypothesis is untestable. There is no observation or experiment I can conduct that would prove or falsify the hypothesis. So. In the end, there is not only no testable evidence for Gods, there is no test that can be made.

Well, please prove which version of truth is true here only using testable falsifiable evidence:
Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Of which of these versions of science is true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches

It may not be that simple what truth is or what objective is.
As for formal truth what about that?

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Well, please prove which version of truth is true here only using testable falsifiable evidence:
Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Of which of these versions of science is true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches

It may not be that simple what truth is or what objective is.
As for formal truth what about that?

There is only one scientific method. I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is only one scientific method. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, please give a link to something else that what you think.