Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[Trailblazer]

OK, prove your premises are true.

The premise Messengers are the evidence that God exists cannot be "proven" true to anyone except oneself....
I already proved it to myself because I have thought my way through it, argued it, and applied reason to it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, your assertion is circular, and neither concepts are true.

Sorry, you cannot use the circular ploy this time, and you just re-committed the argument from ignorance, since you have no proof that my concepts are not true.

F1fan, said: So what if it is circular?

It is circular, and neither are true. So they are worthless.

You said “neither are true. So they are worthless” and that is an argument from ignorance unless you can prove neither are true.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Anyone can observe your assertions are circular.

You just proved I was right when I said that atheists use this as a ploy. Thanks.
I have no argument so I cannot have a circular argument..

I don't pretend there is a God, nor that there are messengers from God.

Neither do I.

Yes, we know your standard is low, while ours is high. Just another reminder.

Who is this “we”? Now you are speaking for other people but you don’t know what they know.

I know that religious people don't decide their beliefs are true through facts and reason because they don't explain that they arrived at their beliefs through facts and reason.

I do not care what other religious people so because I am only responsible for myself. I have explained how I arrived at my beliefs through facts and reason but you don’t accept my explanation and that is not my fault. You are as much as calling me a liar.

It's quite simple. They have no facts, and don't use reason. It's what we see them say and do. That's how we know.

Who is this collective “they”? Who is this collective “we”? I have not heard any other atheists on this forum talking like you, at least hardly any. Baha’u’llah has a few choice words to say about people who find fault with other people.

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10

5: O SON OF DUST! Verily I say unto thee: Of all men the most negligent is he that disputeth idly and seeketh to advance himself over his brother. Say, O brethren! Let deeds, not words, be your adorning. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 23-24

When you make claims and don't have facts or reason then people will point it out.

I make no claims, I just have beliefs, and I don’t see anyone but you “pointing out” that I don’t have facts or reason. I guess they didn’t notice, or maybe they are just more respectful in how they communicate.

I have plenty of facts about my religion and I used reason to determine it was true. Now if you are compelled to tell me I don’t, as if you know me better than myself that will be the same as calling me a liar. Do you really want to go there? If you do others will notice that because that is not a regular practice on this forum. Just take a look around.

I only defend myself because it is not justice to accuse people falsely and justice is the most important teaching of Baha’u’llah.

2: O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 3-4

 

[1213]

Who told you the Bible is evidence for God, ...

It is obvious logical fact. I don’t need anyone to tell me that if there is a claim that something happened, it is evidence for the thing. But, obviously evidence is just a sign that indicates it could have happened, not a proof.

Bible shows God has had influence and because we have it, we have evidence for God. And for me, I think Bible is good evidence, because it has knowledge, wisdom, truth and love that I don’t think humans would have without God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is obvious logical fact. I don’t need anyone to tell me that if there is a claim that something happened, it is evidence for the thing. But, obviously evidence is just a sign that indicates it could have happened, not a proof.

Bible shows God has had influence and because we have it, we have evidence for God. And for me, I think Bible is good evidence, because it has knowledge, wisdom, truth and love that I don’t think humans would have without God.

No, it is not an "obvious logical fact". It is not even a fact. The Bible is the claim. You need to learn what is and what is not evidence. One thing is for sure, you are not reasoning based upon logic right now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, I can't deny that I am new here, therefore, I have to be very careful not to say something that displeases the gods around me.

For a new guy, you're not giving the best impression with posts like that and sentences like in this quote.

Yes, some friends here with whom I had the chance to talk give me, gradually, the impression that I am facing real supernatural powerful gods incarnated as members in RF.

You know... How could I deny now the existence of powerful gods while I am allowed to talk with some of them in person... thru the internet space?!

So I think, in order for me to be on the safe side, I should play from now on the ignorant, if not the idiot.

You forgot to answer my question. That question being, how is your question about "robots" (???) relevant to the post you were responding to, which was about evidence and how evidence for non-existing things might look like...


If you don't have anything productive or on-topic to add to the conversation, then perhaps refrain from replying.

 

[F1fan]

It is obvious logical fact.

Show us the facts and the logic that demonstrates a God exists outside of your imagination. I'm predicting you will not be able to do this.

I don’t need anyone to tell me that if there is a claim that something happened, it is evidence for the thing. But, obviously evidence is just a sign that indicates it could have happened, not a proof.

Are you saying that the meaning you assigned to the Bible happened without any influence from other believers around you?

Bible shows God has had influence and because we have it, we have evidence for God. And for me, I think Bible is good evidence, because it has knowledge, wisdom, truth and love that I don’t think humans would have without God.

So YOU think the Bible is good evidence. Objectively the Bible ISN'T good evidence, the inconsistencies are a huge problem, the fantastic claims are not verified, so why are your standards so low?

 

[F1fan]

The premise Messengers are the evidence that God exists cannot be "proven" true to anyone except oneself....
I already proved it to myself because I have thought my way through it, argued it, and applied reason to it.

So it's not relevant beyond your own mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

So it's not relevant beyond your own mind.

No, that is not what I said. I said that we should prove it to ourselves, as we cannot expect other people to prove it to us.
But that does not mean someone might not succeed in proving it to us, that is possible.

That does not mean it is not relevant beyond our own mind.
If it is the truth from God, it is relevant for everyone, even if they do not believe it is true.

 

[F1fan]

Sorry, you cannot use the circular ploy this time,

Pointing out your continual fallacy is not a ploy. Pointing out logical fallacies is proper on a debate forum. I understand you don't like it, but it's true and your problem.

and you just re-committed the argument from ignorance, since you have no proof that my concepts are not true.

You don't know your logical fallacies very well. Actually YOU have the burden of proof. I don't have to accept your claims. I don't have to prove your claims are not true. YOU have the burden of proof to demonstrate your claims are true.

That you can't prove your premises are true yet treat them as if they are true is actually an example of argument from ignorance

You said “neither are true. So they are worthless” and that is an argument from ignorance unless you can prove neither are true.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Neither are true because you haven't demonstrated either true. So the logical default is what we defer to, and that is that claims that can't be shown to be true are by default untrue. So I'm just following the rules of logic. Your dispute is with the system of logic, not me.

Who is this “we”? Now you are speaking for other people but you don’t know what they know.

We is objective thinkers who follow the rules of logic.

I do not care what other religious people so because I am only responsible for myself. I have explained how I arrived at my beliefs through facts and reason but you don’t accept my explanation and that is not my fault. You are as much as calling me a liar.

You admit you can't prove your beliefs to anyone but yourself, so you admit failure in debate and in logic.

Who is this collective “they”? Who is this collective “we”? I have not heard any other atheists on this forum talking like you, at least hardly any.

I'm referring to theists as a whole who cannot present a factual and coherent argument to prove their beliefs are true.

I make no claims, I just have beliefs, and I don’t see anyone but you “pointing out” that I don’t have facts or reason. I guess they didn’t notice, or maybe they are just more respectful in how they communicate.

Then why do you keep repeating things you can't prove are true?

I have plenty of facts about my religion and I used reason to determine it was true. Now if you are compelled to tell me I don’t, as if you know me better than myself that will be the same as calling me a liar. Do you really want to go there? If you do others will notice that because that is not a regular practice on this forum. Just take a look around.

Now you are taking this personally. It has nothing to do with you. No theist can do any better job. There are no facts for theists to rely on for claims and arguments.

I only defend myself because it is not justice to accuse people falsely and justice is the most important teaching of Baha’u’llah.

You aren't being victimized. No one is obligated to accept your beliefs. All critics are doing is pointing out you have no facts and a poor explanation for why you believe. But let's note that you said atheists' life would be better if we adopted your belief system, and that suggests our lives are somewhat troubled and in need of some meaning. That's not very nice.

 

[F1fan]

No, that is not what I said. I said that we should prove it to ourselves, as we cannot expect other people to prove it to us.
But that does not mean someone might not succeed in proving it to us, that is possible.

That does not mean it is not relevant beyond our own mind.
If it is the truth from God, it is relevant for everyone, even if they do not believe it is true.

So you still need to prove it is a truth from God. Until then I defer to the logical default that its not true.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you still need to prove it is a truth from God. Until then I defer to the logical default that its not true.

I cannot prove it to you so I guess you will have to defer to the logical default.

 

[Etritonakin]

You made claims that are not supported by fact or established knowledge, and I pointed this out. If you have no facts to back up your claims then I accept your concession.

It is absolute fact that certain things are possible before the development of self-awareness, creativity, etc. -and certain things are made possible by such.
We humans are all evidence which establishes that fact every day.
We purposefully manipulate the same things which existed before the big bang -which are now in a different arrangement.
The only difference is point of reference.
Human activity is referenced from present dynamic nature.
If simplicity is referenced, you will necessarily find creative activity between it and the initiation of the universe.
I can understand one not being interested in considering facts not already accepted, but why waste your time being a naysayer?

It is no different than one saying there was a big bang without being able to produce or reproduce one.
The facts can be arrived at logically by reverse engineering -if one is interested in doing so.

 

[1213]

Show us the facts and the logic that demonstrates a God exists outside of your imagination. I'm predicting you will not be able to do this.

What I said was, Bible is evidence for God. I meant it in same way as, the history books are evidence for that things went as told in the books. Evidence is something that would be a result, if things happened as claimed. Like for example, if you drop a ball to sand, there could be sign of that drop in the sand, after the ball would be removed. Similarly, Bible is a sign that things went as told in the Bible. But, I understand that for atheists Bible is not enough evidence for to believe.

Are you saying that the meaning you assigned to the Bible happened without any influence from other believers around you?

Yes.

So YOU think the Bible is good evidence. Objectively the Bible ISN'T good evidence, the inconsistencies are a huge problem...

I don’t think there is any inconsistencies. I think those exists in the bad interpretations, not in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I said was, Bible is evidence for God. I meant it in same way as, the history books are evidence for that things went as told in the books. Evidence is something that would be a result, if things happened as claimed. Like for example, if you drop a ball to sand, there could be sign of that drop in the sand, after the ball would be removed. Similarly, Bible is a sign that things went as told in the Bible. But, I understand that for atheists Bible is not enough evidence for to believe.



Yes.



I don’t think there is any inconsistencies. I think those exists in the bad interpretations, not in the Bible.

No, the Bible is just the claim. When the real.world tells us that many parts of the Bible.is.wrong.how.do you test your book?

 

[F1fan]

What I said was, Bible is evidence for God. I meant it in same way as, the history books are evidence for that things went as told in the books.

First, the Bible isn't a history book. Second, actual history books get things wrong sometimes, either by errors of research, or political/cultural motives to distort the past. This is why ethics is so critical in academics. If things are published that are not factual they are exposed. The Bible has many errors of history, for example Pilate not being in the area where the supposed execution of jesus took place.

So you still need credible evidence that a supernatural character in a book exists, and it needs to be better than a book written at a time when embellishment was common.

Evidence is something that would be a result, if things happened as claimed. Like for example, if you drop a ball to sand, there could be sign of that drop in the sand, after the ball would be removed. Similarly, Bible is a sign that things went as told in the Bible. But, I understand that for atheists Bible is not enough evidence for to believe.

Then why did you reference poor quality evidence?

Balls and sand are known to exist. Gods are not known to exist outside of religious lore. You need to present objective evidence that what you are claiming true in a public forum IS true. Your belief is irrelevant.



Yes.

 

[F1fan]

It is absolute fact that certain things are possible before the development of self-awareness, creativity, etc. -and certain things are made possible by such.

How is it possible?

We humans are all evidence which establishes that fact every day.

No, humans are evidence that humans exist. Humans aren't evidence that your assumptions and guesses are true.

We purposefully manipulate the same things which existed before the big bang -which are now in a different arrangement.
The only difference is point of reference.

There's only speculation about what happened before the Big Bang, and science is honest about that. The speculation still has to account for what is plausible.

Human activity is referenced from present dynamic nature.
If simplicity is referenced, you will necessarily find creative activity between it and the initiation of the universe.
I can understand one not being interested in considering facts not already accepted, but why waste your time being a naysayer?

None of this is coherent. And if "facts" aren't accepted as fact then it's because they aren't facts. Facts are verifiable and not disputed.

 

[Suave]

After reading a bunch of post this past week, I've decided to create this thread and list all the evidence I found for a god existing and all the evidence for a god not existing.

For a god existing the evidence is...

For a god not existing the evidence is...


There you have it. Look all the evidence over. Compare all the evidence, debate it and see what you come up with. No need to thank me. Its all in a weeks work

Our genetic code's creator has left this mathematical pattern in our genetic code conveying to me the symbol of an Egyptian triangle as well as the number 37 embedded in our genetic code.

Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 x 3 squared), the sum of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 x 4squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 x 5 squared). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared + 5 squared,, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle. Based on this signal of intelligence left in our genetic code, I suspect our genetic coding was created by a greater intelligence beyond the limited scope of us human beings on Earth.

 

[1213]

… The Bible has many errors of history, …

Sorry, I have no intelligent reason to believe that.

… Then why did you reference poor quality evidence?
Balls and sand are known to exist. Gods are not known to exist outside of religious lore…

I believe that any evidence for God would be poor in atheist’s point of view. And I think Bible is best possible evidence for Bible God, because things happen as said in the Bible.

But, Bible tells God is love. Are you really saying that love doesn’t exist?

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

 

[1213]

No, the Bible is just the claim. When the real.world tells us that many parts of the Bible.is.wrong.how.do you test your book?

Please give one example, then I can so you how.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please give one example, then I can so you how.

I could give you a bunch. The first clear scientific error found in the Bible was the Noah's Ark myth. There never was a worldwide flood.