Can you give me a solid proof

[osgart]

Utter silence and total inaction, The problem of evil, natural disasters, disease, tribal religions, inconsistent messages throughout time, the need for hell, obsession with infidels, the indifference to life in nature, total lack of any perfection in nature, omnipotence is never acted upon, the need to believe in what should be known, making non believers to be enemies, the animal kingdom is ferocious desperate survival, the experiences of unimaginable suffering in the world.

These are all proof positive that a benevolent God doesn't exist. These are all proof positive that an omnipotent God doesn't exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it's hidden from us how can you know?

The way I know is because Baha'u'llah wrote that God has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's what I like about the imagination. There are absolutely no limits to what you can put into it.

That cuts both ways.

 

[John53]

The way I know is because Baha'u'llah wrote that God has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men.

Which relies on trusting Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

But as long as you insist not using logic whenever it doesn't fit your beliefs, you have no respect for logic.

That is not what I do. I apply logic to my beliefs all the time.
I only ever said that logic does not apply to an infinite unknowable God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which relies on trusting Baha'u'llah.

Correct.

 

[John53]

Correct.

I don't but I've never read his work and at this point in time most likely never will.

 

[Trailblazer]

Utter silence and total inaction, The problem of evil, natural disasters, disease, tribal religions, inconsistent messages throughout time, the need for hell, obsession with infidels, the indifference to life in nature, total lack of any perfection in nature, omnipotence is never acted upon, the need to believe in what should be known, making non believers to be enemies, the animal kingdom is ferocious desperate survival, the experiences of unimaginable suffering in the world.

These are all proof positive that a benevolent God doesn't exist. These are all proof positive that an omnipotent God doesn't exist.

These might be proof that a benevolent God doesn't exist, but they are not proof that an omnipotent God doesn't exist, since omnipotence does not imply that God does everything He can do, but rather that God has all power to do what God chooses to do.

 

[osgart]

These might be proof that a benevolent God doesn't exist, but they are not proof that an omnipotent God doesn't exist, since omnipotence does not imply that God does everything He can do, but rather that God has all power to do what God chooses to do.

So then a God who is omnipotent refrains from ever acting in the time of human events? That God would be indifferent, and immune to human suffering.

 

[Trailblazer]

He wasn't calling any arguments against the existence of deities well-reasoned. I believe that he was saying that rejecting insufficiently supported claims of deities is reasonable. I suspect that you agree.

Thanks for clarifying that. Yes, I agree.

Should and could imply the existence of this god. Would does not. I am uncomfortable saying what something I don't believe exists could or should do.

As I see it, would also implies the existence of this god. If you are uncomfortable saying what something you don't believe exists could or should do why would you be comfortable saying what something you don't believe exists would do if it existed?

Incidentally, regarding your previous post about what would constitute evidence of a god sufficient to convince a skeptic, I did give you an answer, and I thought a good one. I don't recall a reply from you. I merely gave you the definition of evidence in my answer: whatever experience made the likelihood of a deity greater to degree that its existence seemed likely.

I also mentioned that I couldn't think of any evidence that could do that. Nothing occurring within this universe could not be the work of a sufficiently evolved naturalistic civilization. From Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Sorry if I missed that. I try to answer all my posts if they elicit a response. If you want to post it to me again, I will try to reply.

That's an unsupported claim, one I don't accept. There is no evidence of any reality except nature, nor any evidence that anything is exempt from logical scrutiny.

And if I were willing to throw out reason in the assessment of claims of deities, I'd have to throw out everything in this post, since it is all based in reason.

I do not make claims about God, I have beliefs about God, and these beliefs are based upon what was revealed in scripture, namely what Baha’u’llah wrote about God. I do not expect anyone to accept these beliefs as valid unless they are a Baha’i. I consider my beliefs logical and reasonable even if you do not.

There is no argument that makes a compelling case that no deity exists. But there is a compelling argument that no interventionalist deity exists, that is, one that modifies our reality whether by leaving revelation, answering prayer, or performing miracles. I've given it to you a few times, but I don't recall you're ever having commented on it, so I won't make the full case again here, but just remind you that the argument, which I call restricted choice, is the one with the coin flip argument.

Sorry to say that I don’t consider that a valid argument that proves that no interventionalist deity exists because it comes with personal expectations of what an interventionalist deity would do if it existed, which is no more than an ego projection, i.e., what “I would expect to see if an interventionalist deity existed. I can also say what “I” would expect to see if an interventionalist deity existed, Messengers from that deity, and I can present a logical argument as to why that is what we would expect to see if God wanted to communicate to humans, which is the only knowable way that God intervenes in this world.

 

[Trailblazer]

So then a God who is omnipotent refrains from ever acting in the time of human events? That God would be indifferent, and immune to human suffering.

I believe that humans are mostly on their own to act with their free will and make their own choices.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 248

However, some things such as accidents and injuries and diseases are not subject to free will and as such these occurrences are beyond our control. Man is compelled to endure them because God set it up that way since we live in a material world where some things happen are beyond our control. That is our destiny, our fate, for which God is responsible.

I believe that God acts sometimes to intervene in our fate, but not always, and it is always at His discretion.

“Know thou, O fruit of My Tree, that the decrees of the Sovereign Ordainer, as related to fate and predestination, are of two kinds. Both are to be obeyed and accepted. The one is irrevocable, the other is, as termed by men, impending. To the former all must unreservedly submit, inasmuch as it is fixed and settled. God, however, is able to alter or repeal it. As the harm that must result from such a change will be greater than if the decree had remained unaltered, all, therefore, should willingly acquiesce in what God hath willed and confidently abide by the same.

The decree that is impending, however, is such that prayer and entreaty can succeed in averting it.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 133

Note that it says it “can succeed” not that it “will succeed.”
What I believe that this amounts to is that we are completely at the mercy of God for things that are outside our control.

 

[syo]

Why do you think that is?

Do you think that they can't do it because god DOES exist?
Or do you think that they can't do it, because of how logic works instead?

They can't do it because they lack definitions.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't but I've never read his work and at this point in time most likely never will.

All I can say is that Baha'u'llah is the only reason I believe in God.
I never believed in God before I became a Baha'i, never even thought about God.

 

[rational experiences]

I know that my brother the human only invented the thesis he expresses as science.

I know he searches for the knowledge of all things.

So he says God is hidden.

We're human what God can't he see.. have nor take other than by destruction burning?

The immaculate history of how a hot dense gas in a vacuum was voided into clear gas space incorporated.

So just around earth the thin space plane no longer exists.

Virtually we own non created creations missing mass.

From earth whose mass is fused so it owns no space either as a pre existing hell term if it was released.

To the immaculate existing so the whole created creation is complete without space where we live.

So science by a man's thinking said we are complete. We have dominion by the status of what I realise.

Hence how I feel relates myself which by original human was innocent meek kind caring spirituality I am the status.

Next was the format how to change the immaculate which it already was....with light.

Therefore science had never owned light was the scientists preaching. Yet he wanted the conditions of light in science to be enabled to apply his artificial human want to convert earths mass.

Pretty basic how he became self possessed by the state he personally built owned controlled himself.

Life on earth changed because of chosen man's science.

So his brother natural taught him. Said I was naturally always what you said you'd lost.

Hence to have gained his wisdom star fall attack on earth allowed him to understand.

So natural causes first removed his human type origin by star caused attack....then science caused fallout increased human's body and conscious losses.

So he concluded after a long time of life's removal that he had victimised his own survival.

He taught himself space plus hot dense gases owned cold clear gas no empty space.

Taught you cannot see it.

Taught you cannot contain it as it's natural effects historic is belonging to its own mass. Status eternal without hell. By his human used words. Words which don't own it.

You cannot have natural he told his own self. You survive with natural.

Reasoned. As star fall and not earths God changed you first.

You cannot get back what an unnatural mass from outside had introduced.

Was his human's man's scientific preaching as change meant we were changed.

Wanting natural to be returned to what it once had been first will never occur. Is a personal man's psyche motivation...what I wanted I cannot have.

However as he introduced the scientific caused human earth science fallout his attack was going to be voided year 2012. Which human science never allowed.

Why it was science of human predicted calculated saying future cause.

As his inventive human science greed life style he says is why he won't let us heal. As he isn't going to give it up. Being a rich man's life.

Therefore we await the causes of huge natural disaster changes on earth as it's always happened.

So science knowing how wrong it is theories the evolution of life changed biology on earth. For one purpose.

To prove to machine scientists earth changed the total biological nature garden support of biology itself. In huge disasters as the advice.

If you think your science controls earth the earth's history already proved you don't.

Evolution theory was only proof natural disaster changed the nature of biology on earth.

Just so you stop preaching you're a God in control of all powers bodily emotionally mentally first. Just as a human who dies. As did die and dies in the nature of biology.

Yet as yet you haven't stopped your self preaching. To idealise I preach to my own inventive self. As science was only chosen. The practice.

So don't look back meant don't thesis in science as biology because it dies and theorising about it will destroy life.

Dinosaurs died yet if earth wasn't attacked dinosaurs and not humans would still be living today is sciences notification.

Sine when did you own control the sun changing earth why a moon was near earth or why dinosaur life died?

None of which is the applied human sciences.

 

[Heyo]

That is not what I do. I apply logic to my beliefs all the time.

You don't. You make exceptions right at the moment when logic becomes critical.

I only ever said that logic does not apply to an infinite unknowable God.

One of the exceptions. The other is when and how to determine the trustworthiness of the "messengers".

That is why I can prove that a given god doesn't exist but I can't prove it to a believer. When I do, the believer simply says "logic doesn't apply here".

 

[KWED]

I don't but I've never read his work and at this point in time most likely never will.

I've read a bit. It's the usual meaningless platitudes and vague claims. Not really much different from the scribblings of any other self-proclaimed "messenger of god" in recent times.
I can understand how people raised in it believe in it, but for anyone with any critical faculties to read it as an adult and think "Well, that makes better sense than any other explanation" is simply beyond me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They can't do it because they lack definitions.

That's certainly true, but not enough.

I can give you an extremely detailed definition of bigfoot or some other creature.
And if it doesn't exist, you'ld never be able to prove it doesn't exist either.

Regardless of detailed definitions.

You can only prove it does exist, by finding it and showing it to other people.
But how do you prove such an entity does NOT exist?

All you could ever do is report that you haven't found any evidence for such creature.

There's no such thing as "evidence", let alone "proof" of the non-existence of a thing that stands on its own.
The very concept of that is fundamentally flawed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Utter silence and total inaction, The problem of evil, natural disasters, disease, tribal religions, inconsistent messages throughout time, the need for hell, obsession with infidels, the indifference to life in nature, total lack of any perfection in nature, omnipotence is never acted upon, the need to believe in what should be known, making non believers to be enemies, the animal kingdom is ferocious desperate survival, the experiences of unimaginable suffering in the world.

These are all proof positive that a benevolent God doesn't exist. These are all proof positive that an omnipotent God doesn't exist.

Those things are evidence in support of the idea that such a god does not exist.

They aren't proof.
There's no such thing as "proof" in this context.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've read a bit. It's the usual meaningless platitudes and vague claims. Not really much different from the scribblings of any other self-proclaimed "messenger of god" in recent times.
I can understand how people raised in it believe in it, but for anyone with any critical faculties to read it as an adult and think "Well, that makes better sense than any other explanation" is simply beyond me.

I feel the exact same about any religious and / or superstitious text I have ever read. From theistic scripture all the way to astrology and homeopathy.

 

[Trailblazer]

You can only prove it does exist, by finding it and showing it to other people.

And therein lies the problem. Nobody can ever 'find God' let alone show God to other people...
Nobody can force an omnipotent God to provide the kind of evidence that would be convincing to them.
The only evidence we will ever have for God is the evidence that God chooses to provide.