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

[CG Didymus]

And yet your claims are regularly quoted. If you are stating your beliefs you would need a qualifier. It may get tiresome, but it should be much more preferable to being corrected all of the time.

If you said "I believe . . . . " you will not get harassed or corrected. Or at least not nearly as much.

And when asked why she "believes"? She says that she has proof and evidence. Oh, and is it a claim to say you believe?

 

[Trailblazer]

Could you cite some facts or information in the bible that support any of it's claims a deity exists?

The Bible is not a book of facts and information. One either believes it was revealed by God through the Holy Spirit or they believe it is just a book men wrote. Unless you believe the former there is no point referring to the Bible to support that God exists.

Yes, circular reasoning is a known logical fallacy, so they are by irrational by definition, as it is a basic principle of logic that nothing can be asserted as rational, if it contains a known logical fallacy.

Circular reasoning fallacy.

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

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

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

Of course, since I cannot ever prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I cannnot ever assert the conclusion that God exists. And that is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.

That is also why I am not making any claims, because I cannot prove that what I believe is true to anyone except myself.

Sorry but as i said above, beliefs are the affirmation of a claim.
Those are all claims, you may believe them, but they are still claims.

Claim
verb
1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
noun
1. an assertion that something is true.

-- I have provided evidence.
-- I have not 'asserted' that my beliefs are true, I have only ever said I believe they are true.

But if it floats your boat to believe I am making claims go on ahead and believe it. Personally, I think people should ask themselves why they keep asserting that I am making claims, why it is so important for them to believe that. Clearly it is a psychological phenomenon I won't get into here.

 

[Sheldon]

if the Bible is God's testimony as I believe,

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that is true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And when asked why she "believes"? She says that she has proof and evidence. Oh, and is it a claim to say you believe?

I am not sure that even a disclaimer would help all that much when someone says that they have evidence. Sadly she does not understand the concept of "reliable evidence". She seems to think that if it convinces her that means that it is reliable. Even though it has been explained to her countless times that "I'm sold" is not reasonable because people far too often accept scant evidence for what they want to believe as true.

 

[CG Didymus]

If you believe that the Bible is just a book of claims then the Bible is not evidence but if the Bible is God's testimony as I believe, the Bible is evidence. It might not be enough evidence in order to believe in God, but it is evidence.

Acts 1:1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God...

9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
​

I'm so glad you believe the Bible is evidence. Then it says that Jesus showed himself to be alive with many proofs. Can't refute that. So the resurrection is true. The Bible says so. And, it says this "same" Jesus will return. I'm so glad we've settled that.

​

 

[Trailblazer]

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that is true?

No, I cannot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is not a book of facts and information. One either believes it was revealed by God through the Holy Spirit or they believe it is just a book men wrote. Unless you believe the former there is no point referring to the Bible to support that God exists.

Tell me, do the clear errors in the Bible refute that belief? There is all of Genesis for example. And Exodus. And in the New Testament there is Luke's failed nativity story. And the clear and significant self contradictions between the Gospels. I would say that the evidence is fairly strong that it is just a book written by men. As all holy books appear to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I cannot.

Then it would appear not to be objective evidence.

 

[CG Didymus]

That is fine. But one should try to avoid potentially biased sources. You can see why Muslim sources would not be good. For the exact same reason one has to be fair and avoid Baha'i sources.

"(E)mphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth"? "(S)upreme proofs of His Prophethood"?

Not just ordinary proofs... Supreme proofs. Too bad that once a person joins the Baha'i Faith they then close their minds to everything that goes contrary to Baha'i teachings.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm so glad you believe the Bible is evidence. Then it says that Jesus showed himself to be alive with many proofs. Can't refute that. So the resurrection is true. The Bible says so. And, it says this "same" Jesus will return. I'm so glad we've settled that.

It is the fallacy of black and white thinking and the all or nothing fallacy to say that either everything in the Bible is true or nothing in the Bible is true. You will never be able to reason rationally as long as you keep committing logical fallacies.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then it would appear not to be objective evidence.

Of course it's not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"(E)mphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth"? "(S)upreme proofs of His Prophethood"?

Not just ordinary proofs... Supreme proofs. Too bad that once a person joins the Baha'i Faith they then close their minds to everything that goes contrary to Baha'i teachings.

To be fair that tends to happen with all religions.

People may go through a lot of work if they actually choose a religion. But once they have chosen the tend to ease up on trying to confirm their beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

Tell me, do the clear errors in the Bible refute that belief? There is all of Genesis for example. And Exodus. And in the New Testament there is Luke's failed nativity story. And the clear and significant self contradictions between the Gospels. I would say that the evidence is fairly strong that it is just a book written by men. As all holy books appear to be.

It is the all or nothing fallacy to say that just because there are some errors in the Bible that it is not true at all.
Besides that, much of the Bible is symbolic truth, not literal truth.

The Bible has too many problems for me to be able to rely upon it for my beliefs so thank God I have newer scriptures that are accurate.

 

[CG Didymus]

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that is true?

Yes, Baha'is do have objective evidence... Their prophet said so. Actually, it's such a misleading statement to for a Baha'i to say they believe in the Bible. They don't believe it literally. They don't believe it is 100% authoritative or accurate. So something like creation, the flood, the tower of Babel, and the resurrection are all believed to be metaphorical, symbolic stories. And that's why I disagree with what Baha'is believe. I think the stories were told and written down to be believed as being literally true. Really true? Well that's different. I think it is very probable they were made up myths and legends. But that is just a belief, not a claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am not sure that even a disclaimer would help all that much when someone says that they have evidence. Sadly she does not understand the concept of "reliable evidence". She seems to think that if it convinces her that means that it is reliable.

That is a straw man. I never said or even thought that evidence is reliable because it convinces me!

Conversely, just because something does not convince you, that does not mean it is not reliable evidence.

This is the primary logical fallacy atheists commit continually. They think evidence means what would be convincing to them but that is not what evidence is.

 

[Sheldon]

The Bible is not a book of facts and information.

You repeatedly said it was evidence?

Evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

You seem to have contradicted your earlier assertions that you have made repeatedly, that the bible is evidence?

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

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support your initial premise? If not I must withhold belief.

That is also why I am not making any claims, because I cannot prove that what I believe is true to anyone except myself.

You have claimed publicly they are beliefs you hold, a belief is something one accepts as true, with or without evidence. When you state the belief publicly then it is a claim, regardless of whether you support it with any evidence. Here are the definitions again.

Belief
noun

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Claim
noun

an assertion that something is true.

You may have been unaware that you were making claims, but I have shown unequivocally that that is precisely what we do when we publicly assert a belief.

-- I have provided evidence.

For a deity? I've only seen bare assertions sorry, could you demonstrate what you consider to be the best piece of objective evidence you think supports the belief a deity exists?

I have not 'asserted' that my beliefs are true, I have only ever said I believe they are true.

Yes you have sorry, you even claimed to have evidence (facts and information) to support them, but even were that not the case, I have already shown that beliefs are an acceptance that something it true often without proof, that it is in the definition of belief. If you assert you believe something you are asserting it is true, that's what it means. All you have done here is introduce a redundant tautology.

Again all beliefs are the affirmation of a claim and when we publicly assert a belief, it is a claim. You may have been unaware of that, nevertheless others are correct in asserting they are claims.

if it floats your boat to believe I am making claims go on ahead and believe it.

I do believe that to be the case, but not because it "floats my boast" as you put it, the definitions of belief and claim demsonrate this to be the case.

 

[CG Didymus]

I am not sure that even a disclaimer would help all that much when someone says that they have evidence. Sadly she does not understand the concept of "reliable evidence". She seems to think that if it convinces her that means that it is reliable. Even though it has been explained to her countless times that "I'm sold" is not reasonable because people far too often accept scant evidence for what they want to believe as true.

I've "believed" and changed my mind on several religious "Truths". They were all because of an interpretation of something written done in some Scripture of some religion. I naively believed I was being told the truth in the interpretations I was being told. And one of those religions was the Baha'i Faith. I trusted them until a Christian friend told me the "real" truth. Jesus. But then I asked a Jew why they didn't believe Jesus was their Messiah. They told me. And I thought, "Hmmm? That sounds true".

But really, I tell Baha'is all the time to stop arguing with Atheists. I say, "They don't believe in those other religions for the same reason you, the Baha'is, don't." But, you know, some of them are a little stubborn and don't listen very well.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Scientific conclusions are based on testable evidence and falsifiable premises, they also have to remain tentative no matter how well established, so it's method is the antithesis of faith based religious beliefs.

Science and Religion are as the two wings of a bird, both are needed so the bird can fly.

Science is given to explore the reality of our material world.

Religion is given to explore our spiritual reality, who we really are and what we can become.

So both need to work in harmony to find the potential they offer in this world.

As the wings are of the same bird, both Subjective and Objective thoughts are required for them to work in harmony and those thoughts permeate through both wings.

The same claim cannot be made for religions, as they are not based on strict adherence to objective evidence, and a method of relentless scrutiny that constantly eliminates bad or weak ideas and beliefs when the evidence demands it.

Faith is built upon both Subjective and Objective evidence, the issue is not many really want to explore this.

To compare science in any way to religion, is the most dishonest absurdity imaginable.

To prefer one over the other may be the most dishonest absurdity imaginable.

The best flight may be obtained by the use of both wings.

Regards Tony

 

[Sheldon]

if the Bible is God's testimony as I believe, the Bible is evidence.

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that is true?

No, I cannot.

Then the bible is not demonstrable evidence, you just choose to believe it is. Evidence is defined as the body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, yet despite asserting you believe those two assertions, you can demonstrate no objective evidence for those beliefs? I realise you don't seem to see this as a barrier to belief but your assertion that the bible is evidence is clearly not something you can support. So it is a bare claim, and furthermore having been asked to cite even one piece of the "evidence" you claimed the bible contained to support the belief in an extant deity, you now admit you cannot offer anything?

 

[Sheldon]

Science is given to explore the reality of our material world.

Religion is given to explore our spiritual reality, who we really are and what we can become.

So both need to work in harmony to find the potential they offer in this world.

Science works as a method, and does not need religious faith at all, that assertion is simply false.

Faith is built upon both Subjective and Objective evidence,

Could you please demsonrate some objective evidence for any deity then please? Preferably the most compelling piece of objective evidence you think you have, but that's your choice. Only I keep seeing claims for evidence, but no actual evidence.