Evidence for God

[osgart]

One could make an exception to the logical rule. Since logic is a human discovery. Have an atheist explain why there is no evidence of a God. Put the argument on equal footing and examine it that way for a change. That would put the onus on the atheist for explaining their reasons that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

At least it wouldn't be a one sided trial of the believer. They could even choose a definition of God that they understand. That would force everyone to consider their own positions and see how far that goes. Flip the tables of discussion. Just as an experiment even to see if more can be said then a mere dismissal based on lack of evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem you have is the existence of the Bible and the writings of those you accept as messengers. The problem is your evidence exists and anyone can examine your evidence. It describes God and God's attributes.

The atheists looks at the evidence offered by these messengers and say "No, sorry I haven't seen anything like that", a being with the power and attributes described by your messengers.

If the Atheists were reading the Bible and the writings of those I accept as messengers, then they would know why they haven't seen anything like that", a being with the power and attributes described by the messengers.

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

1 John 4:12
No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.

John 5:37
And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

1 Timothy 6:16
who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

So then what will you tell the "natives"?
What the messengers described in their writings were wrong. That they should be looking for something else?

No, I would tell them to read what the messengers described in their writings. Then they would know why they have not seen God, and they would not look for something they can never find.

 

[Trailblazer]

One could make an exception to the logical rule. Since logic is a human discovery. Have an atheist explain why there is no evidence of a God. Put the argument on equal footing and examine it that way for a change. That would put the onus on the atheist for explaining their reasons that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

At least it wouldn't be a one sided trial of the believer. They could even choose a definition of God that they understand. That would force everyone to consider their own positions and see how far that goes. Flip the tables of discussion. Just as an experiment even to see if more can be said then a mere dismissal based on lack of evidence.

"Have an atheist explain why there is no evidence of a God."

Atheists will say there is no evidence of a God because there is no God, and that if God existed there would be evidence....
I already know that since I have been posting to Atheists for over 10 years.

A better question for Atheists is: If there was a God what would the evidence look like?

 

[osgart]

Anything that cannot be defeated by something with the same evidence. Anything that can be defeated by naturalistic explanations, even is that has zero evidence, will get its own evidence canceled.

For instance: claiming that the Universe is finely tuned to require a tuner, is defeated by postulating the existence of an eternal random generator of universes with random constants, and so some are bound to be fine tuned for everything. The latter claim has the same evidence of the God one, and therefore cancels the evidence of the original positive claim, since it has zero evidence.

Or that does not contain fallacious arguments, like the ubiquitous circular reasoning, or special pleading.

For instance, claiming that order necessitates an orderer, would entail that the orderer is not ordered, if it has not been ordered by another orderer. Claiming the orderer is an exception, is special pleading, and therefore logically invalid.

Ciao

- viole

So if there is an independent reality that is self sufficient for its own existence , like a root reality that generates all universes making all universes dependent realities, by the laws of logic we could not possibly know that.

And an infinite regress of orderers is possible without the need for a foundational reality?

The foundational reality could just be an ever-changing reality that spawns universes in a neverending cycle.

So it's all speculation?

I have my own intuitions about that.

When does evidence ever tell the whole story though? Evidence may just reveal things in part with the rest of reality being a mystery. Inside of reality we understand it with the coherence of science, but from an outside perspective there may be endless other laws or rules that make our coherent reality real and coherent.

 

[CG Didymus]

What are you on about?
Do you expect all the different religions and creeds to be in agreement with each other?
I don't, for various reasons.

As time goes by, creeds get corrupted etc.

The most recent [as far as most people are concerned], are Christianity and Islam.
They have more in common, than differences.
..but the devil, and many others, seek to divide and rule.
There IS only One God .. you cannot divide God.

No I don't expect them to be in agreement with each other and they aren't. Different religions believe different things about divine spirit-beings. The Baha'i definition of God is fine. But does it match what other religions believe? TB is claiming that all we can know about this one supposed God is what the various messengers said about God. But if they said different, contradictory things, then they aren't describing the same God.

 

[F1fan]

I came up with a new idea while out on my daily two hour walk last night. Here is my analogy:

Let’s say there are natives who live deep in the jungles of Africa and they have never seen or heard anything from the outside world. Let’s say that an airplane crashed in that jungle and some men went to investigate the crash site. For the sake of argument let’s say that these natives can speak and understand English. So, the investigators ask the natives if they have seen any ‘evidence’ of the airplane that crashed in the jungle. The natives say they have no idea what the investigators are talking about since they have no idea what an airplane is. How would the natives know if there was any evidence for that airplane crash if they don’t even know what an airplane is or what it looks like? Airplane is only a word to them.

Except investigators can show the natives what a plane is, photos, point them out in the sky as they fly over. They can show the natives the wreckage as proof planes actually exist. Can theists do the same for atheists? Heck, even theists can't agree on what God is. So bad analogy.

Likewise, since Atheists do not believe in the God of theism, they are only left with only a word, God.

There is no single God of theism. Theists disagree on what God is. Believers of any stripe can't convince other theists any more than they can atheists.

How can they say there is no evidence for God if they don’t even know what God is?

Given how believers can't agree on what God is the problem is believers not knowing. Atheists are honest that the lack of evidence can't warrant belief.

How can they know what kind of evidence to look for if they don’t know what God is?

Why can't believers agree on what God is? If they "get it" why can't they agree? They are "getting" different things. The problem isn't atheists, it's all the confused believers.

How can they say the evidence would be verifiable if they don’t know what God is?

Ask all the different believers who can't agree. It's got nothing to do with atheists.

How can they know that God would be verifiable if God existed?

Some believers think they know, others, like you, say God can't be known. None of you believers agree.

Do you understand the problem?

Theists disagreeing due to lack of evidence.

It is not logical to say what that evidence should consist of or what it should not consist of if you don’t know anything about the entity you are looking for.

Tell that to police. Believers are confused and they can't come to an agreement about what God is. If only they had adequate evidence to "get it".

 

[Trailblazer]

Except investigators can show the natives what a plane is, photos, point them out in the sky as they fly over. They can show the natives the wreckage as proof planes actually exist. Can theists do the same for atheists? Heck, even theists can't agree on what God is. So bad analogy.

Fallacy of false equivalence because that is like comparing apples and oranges. Theists cannot show the atheists who God is in photos because God is not a material object that flies overhead like a plane. Likewise, theists cannot show atheists the wreckage of a God as proof that God actually exists.

There is no single God of theism. Theists disagree on what God is. Believers of any stripe can't convince other theists any more than they can atheists.

Given how believers can't agree on what God is the problem is believers not knowing. Atheists are honest that the lack of evidence can't warrant belief.

Why can't believers agree on what God is? If they "get it" why can't they agree? They are "getting" different things. The problem isn't atheists, it's all the confused believers.

Ask all the different believers who can't agree. It's got nothing to do with atheists.

Some believers think they know, others, like you, say God can't be known. None of you believers agree.

Theists disagreeing due to lack of evidence.

Tell that to police. Believers are confused and they can't come to an agreement about what God is. If only they had adequate evidence to "get it".

The fact that theists disagree about what God is is a red herring, since you are changing the subject, distracting the audience from the real issue and focusing on something else that has nothing to do with my point. This thread is not about what theists disagree about or whether they are confused. It is about the fact that atheists say "that's not evidence" every time I present evidence for God.

My point was that atheists say I have no evidence, but how would they know that what I have is ‘not evidence’ if they don’t even know what evidence for God would look like if it existed? How can you know what isn't evidence unless you know what evidence for God would look like if it existed?

Theists do not disagree due to lack of evidence for God. If they disagree, and they don't always disagree, it is because they come from different religions that depict God differently.

 

[danieldemol]

Fallacy of false equivalence because that is like comparing apples and oranges. Theists cannot show the atheists who God is in photos because God is not a material object that flies overhead like a plane. Likewise, theists cannot show atheists the wreckage of a God as proof that God actually exists.

But can you show anything more than hearsay which demonstrates that spiritual entities exist? If not then it seems logical to me to entertain the possibility that the reason they are apples and oranges is because existence and non-existence are apples and oranges.

The fact that theists disagree about what God is is a red herring, since you are changing the subject, distracting the audience from the real issue and focusing on something else that has nothing to do with my point...

Theists do not disagree due to lack of evidence for God. If they disagree, and they don't always disagree, it is because they come from different religions that depict God differently.

But why do they depict God differently if they are basing their depictions solely on reliable evidence? Surely you have to admit this is because imagination plays some part in their depictions, and if it plays some part, how do you demonstrate reliably (ie without hearsay) that it doesn't play the whole part to a non-believer in your God?

In my view it is relevant to your point that you have evidence to question whether that "evidence" is reliable or whether it is wholly founded in the imagination.

In my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

But can you show anything more than hearsay which demonstrates that spiritual entities exist? If not then it seems logical to me to entertain the possibility that the reason they are apples and oranges is because existence and non-existence are apples and oranges.

Scriptures are not hearsay.

But why do they depict God differently if they are basing their depictions solely on reliable evidence? Surely you have to admit this is because imagination plays some part in their depictions, and if it plays some part, how do you demonstrate reliably (ie without hearsay) that it doesn't play the whole part to a non-believer in your God?

If scriptures depict God differently that is because God was depicted differently in the different ages when those scriptures were revealed.
But it is not all that. Part of it is the misinterpretation of those scriptures by the believers, who read the scriptures and turned God into something that God is not, like making God into a trinity.

If nonbelievers call the scriptures hearsay I cannot demonstrate anything. They would have to at least acknowledge that God had something to do with the scriptures, even if not always directly.

In my view it is relevant to your point that you have evidence to question whether that "evidence" is reliable or whether it is wholly founded in the imagination.

That's true, but that was not what this thread was supposed to be about. We already know that atheists don't think my evidence is reliable.

The subject of this thread is:
Atheists say I have no evidence but how would they know that what I have is ‘not evidence’ if they don’t even know what evidence for God would look like if it existed?

In other words, how would they know MY evidence for God is NOT evidence for God unless they knew what evidence for God would actually look like if it existed?

 

[danieldemol]

Scriptures are not hearsay.

I asked Google to define hearsay, here is what I got courtesy of Oxford languages;
'information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.'
Source: define hearsay - Google Search

So whatever information about God is contained in Baha'u'llah's scripture is information received from another person (Baha'u'llah) which (as I see it) the non-believer cannot substantiate. Seems like the definition of hearsay to me.

That's true, but that was not what this thread was supposed to be about. We already know that atheists don't think my evidence is reliable.

The subject of this thread is:
Atheists say I have no evidence but how would they know that what I have is ‘not evidence’ if they don’t even know what evidence for God would look like if it existed?

In other words, how would they know MY evidence for God is NOT evidence for God unless they knew what evidence for God would actually look like if it existed?

Well if you spoke with a tribe that used and understood plastic and metal and you said "my flying metal object crashed" but they could either find only plastic, or even worse couldn't find any metal or plastic, then they would know you had no flying metal object that crashed based on how you described it.

In my view the same goes for a God with the specific attributes listed in the Baha'i writings. Since no creature with those specific attributes is found, it is safe to conclude you dont have evidence of its existence.

For example the Bahai writings describe God as All-Knowing, All-Merciful and Omnipotent, yet in the place of finding an All-Knowing, All-Merciful and Omnipotent entity we find a universe filled with suffering. So in my view it is reasonable to conclude we don't have reliable evidence for such an entity based on our knowledge of what mercy and power are and the description of God's attributes by Baha'u'llah as being all of both.

In my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

I asked Google to define hearsay, here is what I got courtesy of Oxford languages;
'information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.'
Source: define hearsay - Google Search

So whatever information about God is contained in Baha'u'llah's scripture is information received from another person (Baha'u'llah) which (as I see it) the non-believer cannot substantiate. Seems like the definition of hearsay to me.

I do not believe that Baha'u'llah was 'just another person.'
I believe He was a Messenger of God who had a twofold nature, so He was both divine and human.

I don't expect atheists to believe that since it is a faith-based belief and it cannot be proven as a fact. Moreover, even if they believed He had a twofold nature, it could never be proven that God spoke to Him.

Well if you spoke with a tribe that used and understood plastic and metal and you said "my flying metal object crashed" but they could either find only plastic, or even worse couldn't find any metal or plastic, then they would know you had no flying metal object that crashed based on how you described it.

In my view the same goes for a God with the specific attributes listed in the Baha'i writings. Since no creature with those specific attributes is found, it is safe to conclude you dont have evidence of its existence.

God cannot be 'found' since God is not a material object. God is Spirit. Moreover, God is far and away from where He could ever be found.

For example the Bahai writings describe God as All-Knowing, All-Merciful and Omnipotent, yet in the place of finding an All-Knowing, All-Merciful and Omnipotent entity we find a universe filled with suffering. So in my view it is reasonable to conclude we don't have reliable evidence for such an entity based on our knowledge of what mercy and power are and the description of God's attributes by Baha'u'llah as being all of both.

There is no reason to think there would be no suffering if an All-Knowing, All-Merciful and Omnipotent God exists.
Suffering serves purpose for those who can learn and grow from it.

 

[danieldemol]

There is no reason to think there would be no suffering is an All-Knowing, All-Merciful and Omnipotent God exists.

You are welcome to that opinion, I reject it utterly as absurd to an extreme degree.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are welcome to that opinion, I reject it utterly as absurd to an extreme degree.

You are welcome to your opinion, I reject it utterly as absurd to an extreme degree.

To think there would be no suffering if an All-Knowing, All-Merciful and Omnipotent God exists is patently absurd, since suffering serves a good purpose. Cowards don't like suffering so they think God should not allow it, but God allows what is good for people, not what they want.

I used to think like you and you can see it in threads I have posted here over time, but through tremendous suffering, the likes of which I hope you will never experience, I have grown spiritually. I would not be as strong or as resilient as I am today if I had not suffered. Many other believers will testify to the same experience.

Another reason for suffering:

“While a man is happy he may forget his God; but when grief comes and sorrows overwhelm him, then will he remember his Father who is in Heaven, and who is able to deliver him from his humiliations.”
Paris Talks, pp. 50-51

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, you have Jesus. But how do I know that you are right?

Ciao

- viole

Before you answer that you have to test if you can know that?
So if you know how ever you know that another person is right, I am going to go evidence on you. How do you know with evidence if another person is right?
"A human is right" is a positive claim of the general status of X is Y just like God is the creator of the universe and just as you challenge some version of X is Y, I do the same with you, because I use your standard on you.
How do you know that, if you can know that and what is your evidence?

 

[Heyo]

The subject of this thread is:
Atheists say I have no evidence but how would they know that what I have is ‘not evidence’ if they don’t even know what evidence for God would look like if it existed?

In other words, how would they know MY evidence for God is NOT evidence for God unless they knew what evidence for God would actually look like if it existed?

By looking at the methods you use to gather and present that evidence. If you don't have a reliable method, you don't have evidence. Even if you happen to be right by accident, it wouldn't be evidence as you don't know that you are right or why.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By looking at the methods you use to gather and present that evidence. If you don't have a reliable method, you don't have evidence. Even if you happen to be right by accident, it wouldn't be evidence as you don't know that you are right or why.

So how do you know with evidence that you are right as per evidence. What is that evidence, that you are right?

 

[Heyo]

So how do you know with evidence that you are right as per evidence. What is that evidence, that you are right?

By using a method that is known to produce the highest number of correct answers and eliminates almost all incorrect answers. That gives me the highest possible confidence to be right.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By using a method that is known to produce the highest number of correct answers and eliminates almost all incorrect answers. That gives me the highest possible confidence to be right.

So you only use one method in all of your life. Sweet! I am wrong, because I have tried and I can't do that. But it doesn't seem to matter that much since I have know that for many years now, yet I still seem to be here.

 

[Misunderstood]

As I have always said, there is no proof of God, only evidence. Evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence. There is no verifiable evidence for God, but there is evidence.

My basis for saying I have evidence is my belief in who God is, and that determines what kind of evidence we could have for God. I do not believe that spiritual experiences are sufficient evidence for God because those are subjective and they cannot be experienced by everyone. If God provided evidence in the hope that everyone would believe He exists, I think God would provide some kind of objective evidence that can be examined by everyone. That would give everyone had the same opportunity to believe in God.

When I say I have evidence Atheists always say “that’s not evidence!”

Atheists say I have no evidence but how would they know that what I have is ‘not evidence’ if they don’t even know what evidence for God would look like if it existed?

I came up with a new idea while out on my daily two hour walk last night. Here is my analogy:

Let’s say there are natives who live deep in the jungles of Africa and they have never seen or heard anything from the outside world. Let’s say that an airplane crashed in that jungle and some men went to investigate the crash site. For the sake of argument let’s say that these natives can speak and understand English. So, the investigators ask the natives if they have seen any ‘evidence’ of the airplane that crashed in the jungle. The natives say they have no idea what the investigators are talking about since they have no idea what an airplane is. How would the natives know if there was any evidence for that airplane crash if they don’t even know what an airplane is or what it looks like? Airplane is only a word to them.

Likewise, since Atheists do not believe in the God of theism, they are only left with only a word, God. How can they say there is no evidence for God if they don’t even know what God is? How can they know what kind of evidence to look for if they don’t know what God is? How can they say the evidence would be verifiable if they don’t know what God is? How can they know that God would be verifiable if God existed? Do you understand the problem? It is not logical to say what that evidence should consist of or what it should not consist of if you don’t know anything about the entity you are looking for.

A case in point is what @It Aint Necessarily So said in #574 :

“What I say is that what you offer as evidence doesn't justify your conclusions about it. You have your own standards for justification different from the academic, legal, and scientific communities. Naturally, critical thinkers reject those other standards. That's not going to be changing.”

How does he know that what I offer as evidence for God doesn't justify my conclusions if he doesn’t even know what God is?

If you don’t know what God is how can you say that evidence for God would be according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities? That is not logical.

To claim that evidence for God, if there is any, would be according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities is nothing more than a personal opinion. Now if that is not his claim, and all he is saying is that he will not 'accept' any evidence for God that does not meet those standards, that is a reasonable statement, just as it would be reasonable for an Atheist to say they cannot believe in God without verifiable evidence. However, that is all about what they are willing to believe, not about what is actually possible.

I am looking for people who are logical with whom I can have a logical discussion. Personal opinions mean nothing unless they are based upon logical reasoning.

Trailblazer, there is plenty of evidence if you believe. But not enough evidence for those who do not believe, and even if there was enough, many people would still not believe. Proving God to a non believer will not make most non believers, believe in God. They may know God exists, but not believe in Him.

As far as proof, there are many people who have a personal proof of God. God has revealed Himself to many people. Though time God has talked directly to many people, and has preformed many miracles to prove Himself. People with this direct truth are usually dismissed.

So unless you believe in God, His words, and desires for us; Gods evidence and proofs will be dismissed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Trailblazer, there is plenty of evidence if you believe. But not enough evidence for those who do not believe, and even if there was enough, many people would still not believe. Proving God to a non believer will not make most non believers, believe in God. They may know God exists, but not believe in Him.

As far as proof, there are many people who have a personal proof of God. God has revealed Himself to many people. Though time God has talked directly to many people, and has preformed many miracles to prove Himself. People with this direct truth are usually dismissed.

So unless you believe in God, His words, and desires for us; Gods evidence and proofs will be dismissed.

Yeah, but I still believe in God and yet I do it differently than you.