Can you give me a solid proof

[Heyo]

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.

If your detailed definition is self contradicting, that is proof of non-existence.

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.

That is also wrong. We can rule out brachiosauruses existing in the US. It is impossible for such a big creature to exist without it being spotted or leaving traces.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Which arguments 'against' the existence of God do you consider well-reasoned?

Unless we're being specific, I find it hard to argue "against" the existence of a deity. I simply think that nonbelief is a very reasonable and very defensible position.

My personal position is not: "God doesn't exist." Ultimately, I'm agnostic about God's existence. I approach arguments such as these with an open mind. However, I'm also critical of weak arguments when I spot them.

What I've said in the thread so far is not meant to count as an argument against God's existence. Rather it was to point out problems with Seeker of White Light's approach. It means nothing that God can't be disproven. Seeker fails to see that, I think.

I'm not here to disprove God. I don't think such a thing can be done. Nor do I think it's something atheists should consider worthwhile to spend effort on.

 

[Trailblazer]

Unless we're being specific, I find it hard to argue "against" the existence of a deity. I simply think that nonbelief is a very reasonable and very defensible position.

Although I am a believer I think that non-belief is a very reasonable and very defensible position,
but I also think that belief is a very reasonable and very defensible position.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Although I am a believer I think that non-belief is a very reasonable and very defensible position,
but I also think that belief is a very reasonable and very defensible position.

I agree. Certain strategies for justifying theism are well-reasoned. I've been surprised how defensible a position that theism can be when a few key concessions are made.

Obviously, I've found atheism to be the more tenable position. But that doesn't mean theism can't be reasonable and defensible as well. It certainly has been and can be argued reasonably. Two opposing positions can both be reasonable and defensible.

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree. Certain strategies for justifying theism are well-reasoned. I've been surprised how defensible a position that theism can be when a few key concessions are made.

Obviously, I've found atheism to be the more tenable position. But that doesn't mean theism can't be reasonable and defensible as well. It certainly has been and can be argued reasonably. Two opposing positions can both be reasonable and defensible.

It certainly is nice to hear this coming from an atheist and it is also rare, because most atheists think that theism is an untenable position, unreasonable and indefensible.

I am a rare believer because I believe the atheist position is reasonable and defensible.
I just happen to be a believer because I believe there is evidence for God.

 

[samtonga43]

I agree. Certain strategies for justifying theism are well-reasoned. I've been surprised how defensible a position that theism can be when a few key concessions are made.

Obviously, I've found atheism to be the more tenable position. But that doesn't mean theism can't be reasonable and defensible as well. It certainly has been and can be argued reasonably. Two opposing positions can both be reasonable and defensible.

But they can't both be true.

 

[vulcanlogician]

It certainly is nice to hear this coming from an atheist and it is also rare, because most atheists think that theism is an untenable position, unreasonable and indefensible.

I am a rare believer because I believe the atheist position is reasonable and defensible.
I just happen to be a believer because I believe there is evidence for God.

I think it's the case that most atheists reject theism as it is commonly argued. Arguments from scriptural authority, for example, are bad arguments as far as I'm concerned. (And, trust me, I've given many of these arguments a chance. But have yet to find one convincing.) I think many atheists deem theism unreasonable as it is presented to them. And in many cases, I agree with their conclusions. Plenty of weak arguments flying around. And (typically) I think bad arguments are more of an issue with your average theist than your average atheist. But (also) I try not to judge the strength of a chain by its weakest link.

Some arguments for theism are very well-reasoned, honest, and carefully constructed. John Hick put together an argument for the reasonableness of religious belief based on direct mystical experience being just as privileged than everyday experiences of ordinary phenomena. To Hick, a mystic is justified in taking the object of his/her mysticism to be real because that experience is no better or worse than the experience of looking out of a window and seeing a tree, or whatever. He puts forth plenty of caveats, which are too numerous to detail here. He also adds that scriptural authority is inferior to the sort of "personal mystical authority" that he promotes. Furthermore, adds Hick, scriptures are merely secondary accounts of mysticism. Not all theists agree with Hick's long line of reservations. But I think, taking Hick's reservations into account, theism becomes much more reasonable.

There's also William James who I think makes a good case that faith is reasonable in his essay "Will to Believe." He also shares some of Hick's ideas about mysticism.

All this being said, all this does for me is make theism qualify as reasonable and defensible. A theist has all his work ahead of him to draw the line from "reasonable" to "true."

But they can't both be true.

Agreed. It would be absurd to think two contradictory positions could both be true.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think it's the case that most atheists reject theism as it is commonly argued. Arguments from scriptural authority, for example, are bad arguments as far as I'm concerned. (And, trust me, I've given many of these arguments a chance. But have yet to find one convincing.)

When you say 'arguments from scriptural authority' are you referring to the Bible?

I think many atheists deem theism unreasonable as it is presented to them. And in many cases, I agree with their conclusions. Plenty of weak arguments flying around. And (typically) I think bad arguments are more of an issue with your average theist than your average atheist. But (also) I try not to judge the strength of a chain by its weakest link.

What bad arguments are these?

Some arguments for theism are very well-reasoned, honest, and carefully constructed. John Hick put together an argument for the reasonableness of religious belief based on direct mystical experience being just as privileged than everyday experiences of ordinary phenomena.

I do not believe that religious belief based on direct mystical experience are reasonable at all. How would one person's mystical experience be proof of God to anyone except that person?
How is that any more second had than getting the information from scriptures?

Aside from that, I do not believe that God ever communicates to anyone except His Messengers and Prophets so I do not believe that God ever communicates to ordinary people. I believe that revelations from God through Messengers of God are the only was we can ever know anything about God.

All this being said, all this does for me is make theism qualify as reasonable and defensible. A theist has all his work ahead of him to draw the line from "reasonable" to "true."

That is correct, but how can anyone ever 'prove' a religious belief is true?

 

[vulcanlogician]

When you say 'arguments from scriptural authority' are you referring to the Bible?

The Bible... the Qu'ran... or any sacred text, really. It's shocking how many theists, when asked for evidence of a deity, will point you to passages in their holy book. I don't find such arguments convincing. Mind you, I think that many sacred scriptures contain some true things, and may even be a benefit to those who earnestly seek to learn from them. But as far as serving as evidence for the existence or non existence of a disputed thing? No.

What bad arguments are these?

The Cosmological argument is pretty shaky. The ontological argument is among the worst I've encountered. I don't really want to list all the arguments I've heard over the years. But we can discuss them here, if you have some in mind and you feel like bringing them up.

I do not believe that religious belief based on direct mystical experience are reasonable at all. How would one person's mystical experience be proof of God to anyone except that person?

Agreed. It's been a while since I read his essay, but I think Hick was arguing that mystical experience would serve as valid proof for the mystic himself only. iirc, he even thought "second hand mysticism" or taking the word of another person based on their mystical experience, is a bad idea.

How is that any more second had than getting the information from scriptures?

It isn't. Both James and Hick have reservations about imposing one's own mystical experiences on others. They are not very ambitious in their claims about mysticism's value. I appreciate their being realistic about that. Thay are careful with their claims. That's what I like about them. And that's why I find their arguments somewhat convincing. Hick is basically saying, "If YOU experience God directly, it is then reasonable for you to conclude that God exists."

Aside from that, I do not believe that God ever communicates to anyone except His Messengers and Prophets so I do not believe that God ever communicates to ordinary people. I believe that revelations from God through Messengers of God are the only was we can ever know anything about God.

How do you know that?

It could be that God talks to tons of people you might deem unworthy, and you never hear about it. The only time people in general hear about mystical experience is when some "prophet" with grand ambitions tries to sell his mystical experiences to people at large. Of course, these particular folks might be biased... or they mistakenly think that only others with such grand ambitions will ever hear a word from the Divine Mouth.

That is correct, but how can anyone ever 'prove' a religious belief is true?

I think, even after giving mysticism consideration for personal proof, we never get to a proof that will convince everyone of a religious truth. I mean, God poking his head out of the clouds and announcing himself would probably convince me and most other atheists. But short of that, I don't see any religion being provable.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Bible... the Qu'ran... or any sacred text, really. It's shocking how many theists, when asked for evidence of a deity, will point you to passages in their holy book. I don't find such arguments convincing. Mind you, I think that many sacred scriptures contain some true things, and may even be a benefit to those who earnestly seek to learn from them. But as far as serving as evidence for the existence or non existence of a disputed thing? No.

I believe that the Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists, and of course that is connected to the scriptures, but it is not only the scriptures that are evidence, it is the Person of the Messenger and what they accomplished on their mission.

Obviously, atheists do not believe that and that always say to me “that’s not evidence!” so I asked them in this thread what would constitute evidence:
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/atheists-what-would-be-evidence-of-god’s-existence.250514/

The Cosmological argument is pretty shaky. The ontological argument is among the worst I've encountered. I don't really want to list all the arguments I've heard over the years. But we can discuss them here, if you have some in mind and you feel like bringing them up.

I do not buy the Cosmological argument or the ontological argument at all. For me, the only evidence for God’s existence is the Messengers of God.

Hick is basically saying, "If YOU experience God directly, it is then reasonable for you to conclude that God exists."

The problem with that is that anyone can imagine they have experienced God directly and many people have made the claim, but what reason would anyone else have to believe them? What do they have for evidence besides their claims?

How do you know that?

It could be that God talks to tons of people you might deem unworthy, and you never hear about it. The only time people in general hear about mystical experience is when some "prophet" with grand ambitions tries to sell his mystical experiences to people at large. Of course, these particular folks might be biased... or they mistakenly think that only others with such grand ambitions will ever hear a word from the Divine Mouth.

I believe what my religion teaches, that there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and that is why God sends Messengers to act as Intermediaries between God and man. God's Messengers can understand God speaking through the Holy Spirit and they can understand God because they have a divine mind. Nobody else has a divine mind so nobody else can understand God directly.

Messengers can act like Mediators between God and man since they have a twofold nature, both divine and human, so they can understand God and humans and they can relay communication from God back to humans in a form that humans can comprehend.

I think, even after giving mysticism consideration for personal proof, we never get to a proof that will convince everyone of a religious truth. I mean, God poking his head out of the clouds and announcing himself would probably convince me and most other atheists. But short of that, I don't see any religion being provable.

God does not have a head, but even if God somehow put in a public appearance, how would anyone know it was God, and not an alien from outer space? Do you understand the problem? Some atheists have suggested that if God spoke from the sky they would believe, but how could they know it was really God and not an alien?

No, no religion is provable, but that does not mean that no religion is true, because provability is not what makes a religion true.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I'm enjoying our exchange, btw.

I believe that the Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists, and of course that is connected to the scriptures, but it is not only the scriptures that are evidence, it is the Person of the Messenger and what they accomplished on their mission.

...

For me, the only evidence for God’s existence is the Messengers of God.

Let me stop you right there. Is your belief in the "Messengers of God" based on underlying beliefs? Do you start your investigation with: "whatever the Messengers of God say is true must be true." ? Because, if so, that sounds like dogma to me. If not, what are the underlying belief(s) that support your belief that the Messengers of God give you good evidence for God's existence?

Obviously, atheists do not believe that and that always say to me “that’s not evidence!” so I asked them in this thread what would constitute evidence:
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/atheists-what-would-be-evidence-of-god’s-existence.250514/

Boy, it sounds like we atheists are really skeptical or something. If that's the case, it'll take a considerable amount of solid evidence to convince us.

As I said before, I really liked the question you asked in that OP. I'll give it a look-see and see if I can give a good response. I've been giving the question some thought since I encountered it.

God does not have a head, but even if God somehow put in a public appearance, how would anyone know it was God, and not an alien from outer space? Do you understand the problem? Some atheists have suggested that if God spoke from the sky they would believe, but how could they know it was really God and not an alien?

That's actually a really good question. And you know who would be all over that theory? The History Channel guy with the crazy hair. (You know the guy I mean.)

No, no religion is provable, but that does not mean that no religion is true, because provability is not what makes a religion true.

I guess I'd have to agree with you there. But I think "provability" is a rock solid way of determining how true something is.

"Provability" is what convinces us that certain things are true, but it does not itself make things true. Something is either true or untrue to begin with, before any proving is done.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm enjoying our exchange, btw.

Me too.

Let me stop you right there. Is your belief in the "Messengers of God" based on underlying beliefs? Do you start your investigation with: "whatever the Messengers of God say is true must be true." ? Because, if so, that sounds like dogma to me. If not, what are the underlying belief(s) that support your belief that the Messengers of God give you good evidence for God's existence?

No, that is not what happened. I had no underlying beliefs before I became a Baha’i and came to believe in Messengers of God. I was not even searching for God or a religion when I stumbled upon the Bahai Faith over 51 years ago.

I have explained the story of what led me to my belief in God and Messengers on this forum more than once, and below is my most recent post I posted about a year ago.

Why do you believe in the religious teaching you do?

What supports my belief that the Messengers of God give are good evidence for God's existence are contained in the Writings of Baha’u’llah.

Boy, it sounds like we atheists are really skeptical or something. If that's the case, it'll take a considerable amount of solid evidence to convince us.

Yes, atheists are very skeptical, but they should be skeptical, because otherwise they could wind up believing just about anything, and there are lots of beliefs out there that are false.

Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for what is true. We should each conduct an independent investigation of truth before we accept any religion or Messenger.

"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own."

Independent Investigation of Truth

As I said before, I really liked the question you asked in that OP. I'll give it a look-see and see if I can give a good response. I've been giving the question some thought since I encountered it.

I am not sure what OP you are referring to because this is not a thread I started.

That's actually a really good question. And you know who would be all over that theory? The History Channel guy with the crazy hair. (You know the guy I mean.)

I am not sure who you are referring to since I don’t get that channel but I thrive on philosophical discussions about God and how we can know God exists. I have been posting on various forums for about nine years, mostly to atheists, because I like these kinds of discussions.

I guess I'd have to agree with you there. But I think "provability" is a rock solid way of determining how true something is.

"Provability" is what convinces us that certain things are true, but it does not itself make things true. Something is either true or untrue to begin with, before any proving is done.

That is what I always say. Proof is what convinces us that certain things are true, but it does not itself make things true. Something is either true or false. God either exists or not, and proof is not what makes God exist, proof is just what people want in order to believe that God exists. However, there is no proof, only evidence.

The same applies to the Messenger of God. He is either a true Messenger of God or a false messenger. Evidence is not what makes Him a true Messenger of God but we need evidence in order to determine if He is a true Messenger of God.

What I always tell atheists is that we can prove that a religion is true, but we can only prove it to ourselves. We cannot prove a religion is true as a fact because religion involves God, who can never be proven to exist as a fact. I hope that makes sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If your detailed definition is self contradicting, that is proof of non-existence.

Yeah, well... I'm assuming a half decent definition that isn't obviously self contradicting like "married bachelor".

That is also wrong. We can rule out brachiosauruses existing in the US. It is impossible for such a big creature to exist without it being spotted or leaving traces.

The lack of any kind of observation, both direct and indirect (= footprints, fecies, etc), makes it implausible. Not impossible.

Sure, it's so implausible that we might as well call it impossible.
But we don't know with absolute certainty. And "proof" leads to certainty, while evidence leads to plausibility.
And in this case, the "evidence" would actually be lack of evidence / proof to the contrary.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And therein lies the problem. Nobody can ever 'find God' let alone show God to other people...

Which is a problem for theists.

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.

Then this god:
- is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist
- is indistinguishable from things that only exist in people's imagination
- is a god that rewards gullibility / irrationality while punishing reason and rational thinking

And I'ld say that the first 2 makes it unreasonable to believe god claims.
The last one is also incompatible with most definitions of gods and more specifically the qualities / traits associated with said god - like "just" and "benevolent", as no just and benevolent entity would reward gullibility while punishing rationality.

 

[Heyo]

The lack of any kind of observation, both direct and indirect (= footprints, fecies, etc), makes it implausible. Not impossible.

Sure, it's so implausible that we might as well call it impossible.
But we don't know with absolute certainty. And "proof" leads to certainty, while evidence leads to plausibility.
And in this case, the "evidence" would actually be lack of evidence / proof to the contrary.

What is the possibility of there being an elephant (real, life, adult) in your house right now?

 

[Heyo]

Some arguments for theism are very well-reasoned, honest, and carefully constructed. John Hick put together an argument for the reasonableness of religious belief based on direct mystical experience being just as privileged than everyday experiences of ordinary phenomena. To Hick, a mystic is justified in taking the object of his/her mysticism to be real because that experience is no better or worse than the experience of looking out of a window and seeing a tree, or whatever. He puts forth plenty of caveats, which are too numerous to detail here. He also adds that scriptural authority is inferior to the sort of "personal mystical authority" that he promotes. Furthermore, adds Hick, scriptures are merely secondary accounts of mysticism. Not all theists agree with Hick's long line of reservations. But I think, taking Hick's reservations into account, theism becomes much more reasonable.

What does Hick say about "alien abductions"? From what you have laid out up to now, they are as reasonable as theism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is the possibility of there being an elephant (real, life, adult) in your house right now?

Yeah ok.

But in my defense, we are not talking about a confined space like my house.
The entire US vs my house isn't exactly the same thing.

And in the case of a god, we are even talking about the entire universe and "beyond" (whatever that means).

Furthermore, my statement didn't deal with a specific thing that is already known to exist, if it exists also in a specific clearly defined location.
It rather deals with an unknown entity for which there are no known precedents.
Specifically if such thing exists at all, anywhere.


So yes, I can say with much certainty that there are no unicorns in my garage.
But can I also say with the same level of certainty that there are no unicorns anywhere?

I'ld say chances of unicorns existing anywhere is rather unlikely. So unlikely that I might as well state that unicorns don't exist. But can I "know" that, like I "know" that there aren't any unicorns in my garage?

Not really.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the possibility of there being an elephant (real, life, adult) in your house right now?

I'd say about 20%. It has been a rough week.

 

[Heyo]

Yeah ok.

But in my defense, we are not talking about a confined space like my house.
The entire US vs my house isn't exactly the same thing.

And in the case of a god, we are even talking about the entire universe and "beyond" (whatever that means).

Furthermore, my statement didn't deal with a specific thing that is already known to exist, if it exists also in a specific clearly defined location.
It rather deals with an unknown entity for which there are no known precedents.
Specifically if such thing exists at all, anywhere.


So yes, I can say with much certainty that there are no unicorns in my garage.
But can I also say with the same level of certainty that there are no unicorns anywhere?

I'ld say chances of unicorns existing anywhere is rather unlikely. So unlikely that I might as well state that unicorns don't exist. But can I "know" that, like I "know" that there aren't any unicorns in my garage?

Not really.

I agree. I thought with the Brachiosaurus in the US I had an example of a very big thing in a confined space.
So we can prove a negative by 1. showing it to be logically impossible or 2. showing it to not exist in a confined space we can investigate with a fine enough sieve where that thing can't get through. That's all I want to say. There are still a lot of things which can't be caught by either method, like unicorns on earth or gods in general.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which is a problem for theists.

No, it is not a problem for theists, it is a problem for atheists, IF they want to know if God exists.

Then this god:
- is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist
- is indistinguishable from things that only exist in people's imagination
- is a god that rewards gullibility / irrationality while punishing reason and rational thinking.

No, because God 'chose' to provide evidence of His existence and that is why I believe in God.