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

[CG Didymus]

No. that's just an assumption you made. While accusing me of making fallacious assumptions.



Everything, I dislike woolly meaningless metaphors that demsonrate nothing tangible in the way of objective evidence.

As I said, the scientific method works without recourse to any deity or any religious beliefs, that's just a fact.

The science and religion thing is used by the Baha'is to say that religious superstitions should not be believed. Yet, they can't provide objective evidence for God and that their prophet is a manifestation of God. Also, TB and I were discussing the supposed virgin birth of Jesus, Baha'is believe that but don't believe he rose physically from the dead. So some things, that aren't too different from being superstitious beliefs, are still believed by Baha'is.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see it's flawless guidance, until it is used.

Yes you can see it that way. When used correctly though, great nations are built and prosper.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

That's right because that is how God set it up since God wants everyone to verify the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions rather than believing something just because someone else verified it to be true.

Yeah, so every Baha'i should verify that all the prophecies have been fulfilled by The Bab and Baha'u'llah rather than depending on what Bill Sears says. But that won't happen will it, because you trust him and believe him, even though he's not infallible and could easily be mistaken.

 

[CG Didymus]

it's your task to determine the truth about His revelation, and that means not just cherry-picking things that you think make Him look bad. Independent investigation of truth is called for, not just looking at it from a negative perspective.

So people are supposed to investigate the things said by Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha to determine if they are true. Isn't that what Joeir is doing?

Yeah God forbid he actually be specific? A God decides to speak through someone and he has to be all cryptic and vague?
It doesn't change the atmosphere and plutonium is synthetically produced.

They are just elements. An actual God could have said the energy in mass would be used in a bomb or any number of things. I'm not cherry picking, I'm looking at ALL of the science he gave. It's either already known or wrong. That is not a revelation. Reading from a science book is not a revelation. Making up science is not a revelation.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá claimed that “bodily diseases like consumption and cancer are contagious” and that “safe and healthy persons” must guard against it

Nope not contagious. Again, this reflects thoughts by doctors at this time. Clearly not speaking for a God.

 

[Tiberius]

I have reason to believe that Baha'u'llah knew that it was nuclear processes, you don't.

And what, pray tell, is this reason?

Would it be, "Because that's one way I can get my religious faith and science to agree?"

I mean, Newton, when he wasn't coming up with gravity, was really into alchemy, trying to change lead into gold. Should I conclude he also knew about nuclear reactions as an attempt to justify his efforts? Or should I conclude that he just got that bit wrong?

 

[Tiberius]

It absolutely does not show that at all. It only shows that all people are coming from completely different perspectives so they all come to different conclusions. Human desires and preferences originate from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, and life experiences.

Things that are objective and real do not have this happen.

If they did, then we'd see that people would get differing results for the speed of light based on their childhood.

I meant what I said. Why would that mean I believe incorrectly?

Because a belief that people can find objective truth that way is wrong.

I said that rational people look at the evidence and base the conclusions on that. I also said that rational people know there can never be testable evidence for Messengers of God so they seek other kinds of evidence.

And as I have said, you need to show that something exists before you go looking for a way to measure it.

I absolutely did not say that people will look for whatever they can find to justify the beliefs they have decided are true. That is you projecting your thoughts onto what I actually said and making a straw man.

But that's exactly what you have done. You believed the claims made by Baha'is, and then you went to find a method of finding evidence that would support what you believed.

No, the objective criteria I made myself, just like you made a list of criteria for prophecies.
It was not promoted by my faith.

Does your faith NOT provide any criteria?

Good job! But the wind and light were still there weren't they, even before we had tools to measure them?
Likewise, God is there even though we have no tools to measure God.

But the wind and light could still be detected before we had the tools to measure them. Your God does not.

Nothing you were able to see.

That's about the rudest and most arrogant thing you've ever said to me.

Yes indeed, it is a pretty big IF.

You're not doing yourself any favours here, you know.

 

[Tiberius]

That is so terribly illogical I almost fell off my seat and I am not even sitting down, I am standing up! Excuse me while I compose myself.

Okay I'm back. I just explained to you WHY religion no longer produces results, it is because the older religions have see their day and they no longer have what humanity needs. But I guess I did not get through so maybe this will help if you read it.

“All that lives, and this includes the religions, have springtime, a time of maturity, of harvest and wintertime. Then religion becomes barren, a lifeless adherence to the letter uninformed by the spirit, and man’s spiritual life declines. When we look at religious history, we see that God has spoken to men precisely at times when they have reached the nadir of their degradation and cultural decadence. Moses came to Israel when it was languishing under the Pharaoh’s yoke, Christ appeared at a time when the Jewish Faith had lost its power and culture of antiquity was in its death those. Muhammad came to a people who lived in barbaric ignorance at the lowest level of culture and into a world in which the former religions had strayed far away from their origins and nearly lost their identity. The Bab addressed Himself to a people who had irretrievably lost their former grandeur and who found themselves in a state of hopeless decadence. Baha’u’llah came to a humanity which was approaching the most critical phase of its history.” (Udo Schaefer, The Light Shineth in Darkness, p. 24)

The reason what you said was illogical is because comparing the results we get from religion to the results we get from science is the fallacy of false equivalence since religion is not equivalent to science.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

Characteristics

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used.

False equivalence arguments are often used in journalism[3][4] and in politics, where flaws of one politician may be compared to flaws of a wholly different nature of another.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

I see a whole bunch of handwavium there.

A much simpler explanation is easy to find. All religion is bunk.

The fact that you can come up with elaborate and convoluted explanations to explain away problems means nothing. I can come up with as many explanations as you want to explain the mistakes in Star Trek, but that doesn't mean that Star Trek is real.

No, it is exactly what we would see when religion has deteriorated such that it no longer serves a useful purpose. Then religion becomes barren, a lifeless adherence to the letter uninformed by the spirit, and man’s spiritual life declines.

It's also exactly what we'd expect to see if religion was bunk. And religion being bunk is a much simpler explanation than the contortionist act your explanation has to go through.

You are on some other planet, in some other universe! ~~ I was not citing the verses to show that the religion is true. Did you even read what I said BEFORE the verses?

Yes, you cited them to show that God wanted to establish a new religion. I figured that you wanted me to accept that the claims were true, because if not, I figured you wouldn't waste my time posting them.

So were you presenting the claims as true, or were you wasting my time?

 

[Tiberius]

Yes.

Glad to see we are making progress.

 

[Tiberius]

Let us test that: Reality is true. Truth is real.
I answer no. That is false and thus not in reality and not real as it is not true.

So if you choose to answer, how did you read something false, which is not real and not in reality?

Do you take lessons from Deepak Chopra in how to use many words to say something that is so indecipherable?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's about the rudest and most arrogant thing you've ever said to me.

This remark, about not being able to see, is found in all the Holy Books, they offer that we need to look for the spirit to see it.

So the comment is based on that reading of Scriptures, examples being;

Mark 8:18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember?

Jeremiah 5:21 Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear:

Ezekiel 12:2 “Son of man, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, which has eyes to see but does not see, and ears to hear but does not hear; for they are a rebellious house.

It is not easy to share that aspect, as people will see it arrogant, but I see it is a fundamental truth we have to embrace, if we want those eyes and ears.

Regards Tony

 

[joelr]

You are not helping me at all.

This isn't about you or any individual. Anyone is free to believe fiction if they choose. I'm putting rational thinking out there for anyone who might be interested.

See what I said to someone else:

I don't believe that a religion or Messenger should be believed solely on inner evidence, or just looking at it to see if it is "right for you". Inner inspiration by itself alone is unreliable.

The Baha'i Faith should be investigated to see if the Writings hang together with each other, whether after careful examination with other religious scriptures if they are compatible with Baha'i scriptures since we believe in a lot of Messengers besides Baha'u'llah. Also do we believe from Baha'u'llah's life as well as we can ascertain whether he was deluded, crazy, or lying as far as we are able.

Of course they hang together? They were written by the same person. He wrote poetry and vague spiritual nonsense. All of the science and empirical evidence was wrong or already known.
Paul was not crazy, neither was Joeseph smith, Abraham, Muhammad, Ned Lud or any founder of any religion. They were just not speaking for a God.
There is zero evidence for a God.

Also do the Writings resonate with you in an inner sense. A part of investigation is to be as independent in the investigation as possible from other people. A part people don't usually consider is your own life a reflection of good principles, because that helps you to evaluate whether what the Writings say are good, and increases your possibility of experiencing inner confirmations if they are there.

CHristianity resonates with billions of people. Those same people (the majority) also say you are a heretic. There inner senses say you are going to hell. Your logic here is absurd. I personally know members of Islam who also say the religion resonates with them and they also know all other religions are fake. This proves that people and their "inner senses" are completely misled. There are thousands of people who resonate with the law of attraction, Scientology and many cults. They are mistaken. Inner senses are not reliable.

Inner confirmations lead people to all sorts of new age garbage. But now I see why you believe something like this. This is why empirical thinking needs to be spread. People think that their "inner senses" are correct yet billions of others are wrong. You haven't thought this through.

 

[joelr]

Besides what I have said, spiritual is not physical at all. You are entitled to your opinion, but physical in my opinion is not all that is.

Nothing to do with opinion. It's a fact there is no evidence for anything spiritual, it's undefined and there are millions of people who believe completely opposite versions. It's all crank.

 

[joelr]

Look at my previous post to you and then we can talk about that maybe. But it is so hard to just give one evidence and be at all convincing to you. You have to investigate it independently in it's totality to really be convinced of anything.

Because there is no convincing evidence that meets actual standards. Just confirmation bias. For you it's this version for others you go to hell. None of you have evidence. There is however evidence that it's all made up.
Another problem here is I HAVE been investigating this and I'm reporting my finds and you cannot accept that. You continue to frame it as if it's my standards or I haven't looked at the evidence or some such confirmation bias.

 

[Tiberius]

This remark, about not being able to see, is found in all the Holy Books, they offer that we need to look for the spirit to see it.

So the comment is based on that reading of Scriptures, examples being;

Mark 8:18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember?

Jeremiah 5:21 Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear:

Ezekiel 12:2 “Son of man, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, which has eyes to see but does not see, and ears to hear but does not hear; for they are a rebellious house.

It is not easy to share that aspect, as people will see it arrogant, but I see it is a fundamental truth we have to embrace, if we want those eyes and ears.

Regards Tony

The trouble is that it demeans anyone who does not share your point of view.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well I was responding to a bare claim, so it was a special pleading fallacy.

Two bare claims that tell what it is not, but tells me nothing about this method you referred to?

Two more bare claims.

What is it about atheists and the word claim? Why do they think that everything believers explain to them is a claim?

The conclusion doesn't follow from the initial statement sorry, all claims carry an epistemological burden of proof. Otherwise we can claim literally anything, and even contradictory claims.

I said: "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." How is that a claim?

I watched it through and it made little sense to me sorry, what does "the truth is the truth is the truth" even mean? The narrator keeps mentioning truth as you and others do, as if it something you have, and is absolute, but can't be demonstrated. Something is true if it is accordance with fact or reality, but you have demonstrated no facts?

What he meant is that whatever is true is in accord with Reality as opposed to being steeped in false dogmas and doctrines. He was referring all of Reality, both physical and spiritual Reality.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“What does it mean to investigate reality? It means that man must forget all hearsay and examine truth himself, for he does not know whether statements he hears are in accordance with reality or not. Wherever he finds truth or reality, he must hold to it, forsaking, discarding all else; for outside of reality there is naught but superstition and imagination.” – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 62.

the video makes a lot of claims, like the assertion that "a core truth is that god is all about love", but this planting the horse firmly behind the cart, as you'd first have to demonstrate that a deity exists, and again nothing you have said offers a shred of objective evidence, so the claim has no objective value?

I think that the assumption of yje man who made the video is that the person searching for Truth already believes a God exists and they are looking at different religious Truths..

However, I do have a problem with His assertion that God is all about love because that is an assumption. I mean even if God exists there is no reason to believe that God is "all about love" unless one adheres to a religion such as Christianity that teaches that.

It challenges other religions, but then so do most religions, especially monotheisms, and it seems presuppositional to me, so as I said starting from the inherently bias position that a deity exists, rather than challenging that claim. Which is ironic as you and the video suggest I should not just accept the beliefs of others, I don't need any religious beliefs for that.

As I said, I think that man who made the video presumes that people watching it already believes in God, so yes, it is biased in that way. It really is a video for believers and how to go about selecting a religious belief.

It asserts repeatedly that "each person is individually responsible for discovering the truth for themselves".

This would be the very definition of basing a belief on subjective opinion, and the phrase "the truth" which is repeated like a mantra seems rather silly to me, can I determine if a complex mathematical proof is correct on my own? Can I ascertain if species evolution is true on my own? Or whether complex scientific theories that an entire lifetime of scrutiny by someone with a sufficient intellect and expertise couldn't hope to entirely understand? That's a preposterous idea, though i can see the appeal some people may find in that idea, I find it more than a little facile sorry.

4:29 "They should never believe something just because it has been told to them by a "so called expert"."

Again, the video is geared towards seeking spiritual/religious, it is not about searching for material truth or scientific truth. That does not mean that scientific truth is not valid, but that is not what the video is about. Investigation of scientific truth would entail a different method, the scientific method, testing and verification, although it would involve some research and investigation on our own, so in that way it is similar to researching and investigating a religion.

So you guys don't see doctors then? Or take your car to a mechanic? that's demonstrably absurd, expertise can be challenges and questioned of course, but we live in an era where we have to accept that people specialise in specific areas of knowledge.

Of course we see doctors and take our cars to mechanics. All of us live in the material world so we have to deal with material things and our physical body. These are not the specific areas of knowledge the video was referring to,m He was referring to spiritual knowledge.

The video didn't offer me anything but vague platitudes, and unevidenced assertions sorry? I'm none the wiser about what your belief in a deity is based on?

That was not the PURPOSE of the video. The only purpose of the video was to explain how to go about investigating spiritual/religious Truth, not material truth.

If it's not testable or falsifiable then I'd suggest it can't be objective, but again you have made the claim it exists, but failed to demonstrate it? I feel like I am chasing my tail here. I don't care what it is not like or similar to either.

Spiritual/religious truth cannot be demonstrated objectively and although there is some objective evidence that we can look at, spiritual/religious truth is not testable or falsifiable like material truth is.

You believe a deity exists yes?

Could you please demsonrate the most compelling objective reason or evidence that you think supports that belief?

The most compelling objective evidence that supports my belief in a deity is the Messenger of God. I consider that objective evidence since He existed and walked the earth and set out on a Mission given to Him by God. part of tat Mission was to write scriptures which we can reas so the is also objective evidence.

So it is subjective opinion by definition.

Pretty much.

That seems very closed minded to me. Ringfencing beliefs off from scrutiny hardly suggests they are robustly investigated. You may not care, but again one can believe literally anything if it isn't based on objective and falsifiable evidence, and worse still we never submit it to the scrutiny of others.

We are enjoined to have an open mind and robustly investigate but not to rely upon other people's opinions and be influenced by them. The whole point is that we should believe what we believe is true, not what other people believe is true.

What one wants to believe is not necessarily true, or in accordance with reality, and if one insists it is not just true, but "the truth", and then ringfences it from all scrutiny and criticism then that is the very definition of closed minded.

You are correct in saying that what one 'wants to believe' is not necessarily true, or in accordance with reality, but what someone else wants to believe is not necessarily true or in accordance with reality either. I never suggested that we should be free from scrutiny or criticism, just that we should not believe something based upon what other people think, because they are no more likely to be right than we are. Moreover since we are responsible to God for our beliefs thy should be our own beliefs, not someone else's beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

When did Adam, Noah, Abraham and Buddha ever claim to be a messenger of God?

I don't know if they made that claim, but that does not mean they were not Messengers of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, so every Baha'i should verify that all the prophecies have been fulfilled by The Bab and Baha'u'llah rather than depending on what Bill Sears says. But that won't happen will it, because you trust him and believe him, even though he's not infallible and could easily be mistaken.

Why would any Baha'is be better able to verify that the prophecies were fulfilled than Bill Sears? Sears is not infallible but we are not infallible either. Why would we know more than Sears given he was a Christian for much of his life and he researched the fulfillment of those prophecies for 7 years? It would just be our ego that says we know more than him.

 

[rational experiences]

The answer. Science of man was mans own chosen sin. He was always personally wrong as just a human.

The science man teaching reason to man you were always wrong the message itself.

 

[joelr]

Having fun? He is not trying to convince you with this. It's just one small piece.

So when I find a vague prediction and I call it out suddenly he's not trying to convince me? But he was trying to convince you because you cited this as evidence? You are bouncing around here.

This isn't one small piece it's a vague reference to nothing specific. A bunch of small vague predictions do not equal evidence. All religions have evidence like this. None are real.

You seem to have this delusion that the Baha'i Faith is all about providing convincing scientific evidence.

There was a book entered as evidence in a thread about this that referenced a book that explained how to know a person was a messenger of God. One of the 3 ways to know was predicting new science. Besides that he did not give these prophecies for fun. They were designed to be prophetic proofs of his channeling.
Now that I find all his science flawed we are moving onto to "it isn't about science"??

Isn't there any any other kind of evidence you want? You are confined to science and the physical. The Baha'i Faith or any religion is not about providing science to the world.

Facepalm. The only possible evidence is some type of physical evidence. This faith IS about science predictions because he gave scientific prediction to demonstrate his powers.

It is intended to improve the character of people, spiritualize people and unite people in a universal fellowship. I want that, you just want to tear down it appears to me.

Uh, no. A movement can improve the character of people without ridiculous claims about supernatural connections. Spirituality is about living a good life. Not about an afterlife or ghosts in the sky that speak through people.

The world is now a bastion of skepticism and a world of people trained to believe that only the physical is real. This is mostly religion's fault, because it denied science and started the rift. The world now is in a sad state state because of this. On the one hand, you have those who deny science and independent investigation of truth and reason, and on the other that deny religion's original function of civilizing the world and reform morals and ethics. Without ethics, how will the science and technology be guided for good? Without science and reason how will we avoid falling into superstition? This is part of the perspective of the Baha'i Faith.

Anyone who believes tales of Gods have already fallen to superstition. Every time someone joins a religion suddenly they feel the world cannot have ethics without their myths. Fist of all there are billions in Islam, billions in Christianity and millions scattered in other faiths. Then millions who do not follow religion. what do you want a giant world war when people try to decide which religion has the true ethics? Do you force the minority religions to follow the mainstream? Then you would be forced to follow Yahweh until 2050 when Islam becomes the majority.

We already have secular ethics. We do not need myths to be literal. You know this. If you enjoy the morality of a story you can follow it. Doesn't mean the Gods in the story are real. Ethics are embedded in all of our current myths using the hero's journey in modern media. As long as people believe Gods are real there will be new "messengers" or more people joining older religions which can lead to fundamentalism.

 

[Truthseeker]

So people are supposed to investigate the things said by Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha to determine if they are true. Isn't that what Joeir is doing?

Not in my opinion. He's only trying to tear down Baha'i. He's not looking at both sides, which is needed for independent investigation.