Evidence

[Trailblazer]

You are like a breath of fresh air that just blew in off the Caribbean coast.
I sure hope I am as logically coherent as you are when I get to be your age. You make more sense than of any of the atheists that I have ever met. It would be great if other atheists could read what you write and come to understand the basic logic behind it.

What you said is true. There are however a few holes I need to fill in. Let me take this piece by piece.

That fits the evidence, or lack thereof, perfectly. Who can disagree that if an all powerful God wants to hide from us we're not going to find him?

Logically speaking, if an all powerful God wants to hide from us how would we ever find Him? We can't, and we don't need to. I for one would not want to meet the all-powerful God is a dark alley. We don't need to find the actual entity we refer to as God, we only need to know He exists and we need to know a few things about Him in order to be motivated to worship Him and follow His teachings and laws.

The problem with using it in this kind of discussion is that it stops everything dead. If that's true, there's no point in talking any further. We can't reach any conclusions because God doesn't want us to.

It does not have to stop everything dead in a discussion such as this if we realize that God does want us to know He exists and He wants us to know something about Him and what He wants us to do. All this comes to humans by way of revelations from God to Messengers and the religions that are later established by humans.

Science can never investigate God because he is more powerful than human scientists.

Please tell that to your fellow atheists.
So, the logical implication is that if God existed we would not be able to investigate God. Rather we would have to rely upon God to provide evidence of His existence. Logically, we humans would not determine what the evidence would be - God would determine that.

Added to this is the sad conclusion that all these vague apprehensions of God that so many of us have can't be relied on because, well, God is deliberately being mysterious to the point where we can't distinguish between messages from God and the imaginings of our minds. And that's how God wants it.

You have a valid point about the difficulty distinguishing between messages from God and what we might only imagine. What we need to determine is if the messages of the Messenger 'claimants' are actually messages from God or not. I believe that this is the assignment God has given us, should we choose to accept it.

And the whole thing floats in a void between knowledge and imagination, belief and disbelief. The only "reasonable" thing to do is to drop the whole thing, carry on as if God doesn't exist, and maybe hope he might change his mind one day.

God is not known to change His Mind. Why would He? What He has been doing throughout the millennia has worked to garner the belief of most people. Why would God do something 'differently' just to garner the belief of a very small minority of the population who are atheists? God wants everyone to believe in Him, but God does not need anyone to believe in Him since God has no needs. That is why God leaves it to us to choose whether to believe in Him or not.

Unfortunately also, the whole thing also could be a kind of last ditch defense by believers who can't come up with "reasonable" evidence. Or not.

Believers are not the ones in charge of providing evidence, God is in charge of that. We only tell atheists what we believe the evidence is.

The evidence is 'what God has provided' throughout the ages and it comes by way of the Messengers of God.
Can you think of another way God could communicate with humans such that humans could understand what was communicated? We are back to the Divine Mind again. Messengers have a Divine Mind so they can understand God, and they are also humans just like us, so they can communicate to us in a way we can understand.

 

[leroy]

Probably. So what?



Is this what our discussion has been about? I don't disagree with either of these points. But I will say to you what I just said about another poster. I don't believe that that is all you had to say or why you brought up the evolution of the eye. Your purpose was likely to undermine evolutionary theory by sowing doubt about whether evolution was up to the task of generating eyes in a series of stepwise mutations that each conferred a survival advantage. That's what creationists do. Nobody else broaches this subject except perhaps people learning about evolution for the first time who want to understand the science.

.

So what? So nothing, people like @TagliatelliMonster and @Valjean disagree with us, they claim (as if it were an almost certain fact) that organism evolved mainly through the so called Darwinian mechanism (random variation + natural selection)

I simply challenge their claim, with the intend of showing that they are wrong

 

[F1fan]

So what? So nothing, people like @TagliatelliMonster and @Valjean disagree with us, they claim (as if it were an almost certain fact) that organism evolved mainly through the so called Darwinian mechanism (random variation + natural selection)

They defer to experts in science and are correct.

I simply challenge their claim, with the intend of showing that they are wrong

But you don’t. You have no evidence nor arguments. You just use an apparent lack of understanding about evolution to ask misleading questions. You learn nothing from the efforts of better informed members.

 

[Trailblazer]

But what motivates one to start with Baha'i Faith's writings? Why not start with The Book of Mormon? Or the Rig Veda? Or the Zend-avesta? What about the Bible? Or the Qu'ran?

All Baha'is did not start with the Baha'i Faith's writings. In fact, most Baha'is looked at other religions before they became Baha'is.

I know for a fact that my older brother who is a Baha'i read the scriptures of all the major religions, and he read the Bible five times. Only after that did he stumble upon the Baha'i Faith and read about it.

 

[Alien826]

Are humans supposed to "Know" God?
What I find a bit difficult to say is "God i can not see you or hear you, but I KNOW you are there"
To me, it would be more wise to say, God, I believe in you and even i can not see you, I have faith because you tell me to be strong in faith through the teaching.

Not sure this make sense to others.

To me the contradiction lies in the two parts of your posts I have bolded.

 

[Alien826]

Woohoo! 100+ pages! Where do I jump in and get started?

My advice is "stay out". This thread is like a black hole. Easy to get into and impossible to get out of.

 

[leroy]

They defer to experts in science and are correct.


But you don’t. You have no evidence nor arguments. You just use an apparent lack of understanding about evolution to ask misleading questions. You learn nothing from the efforts of better informed members.

You have no evidence nor arguments

.
So what? I am not making any positive claims; the burden proof is on the guys who claim (beyond reasonable doubt) that organism evolved through the Darwinian mechanism………….so are you one of these guys?

People like me or @It Aint Necessarily So simplly don’t know and don’t claim to know ……..and that seems to be the position of the scientific community

 

[Subduction Zone]

If we agree on the 3 aspects of the evidence, then that is exactly what can be determined from the evidence.

Regards Tony

We don't agree.

 

[Trailblazer]

My advice is "stay out". This thread is like a black hole. Easy to get into and impossible to get out of.

Tell me about it.

 

[Vinayaka]

My advice is "stay out". This thread is like a black hole. Easy to get into and impossible to get out of.

As a former regular discusser with folks from the Baha'i faith, I can proudly say that this is my second post in this thread. Why 'debate' with folks who don't understand what debate means? Carry on.

 

[F1fan]

.
So what? I am not making any positive claims; the burden proof is on the guys who claim (beyond reasonable doubt) that organism evolved through the Darwinian mechanism………….so are you one of these guys?

I am one of those guys who defer to what experts in science report. Aren’t you?

if you have questions then look to see what science reports. If they don’t have an answer then we don’t have an answer. Learn to live with uncertainty.

 

[Alien826]

They absolutely ARE subjective.
Just try to prove that what is reasonable and logical *to you* is also true as a fact.

I'll try.

The evaluation of evidence is something that applies to everything we do, not just religious claims. I'm going to bet that in every other area of your life, you demand "reasonable and logical" proof of what is true. If someone offers you an investment that is "sure" to double your money, do you just take his word for it, or do you demand some kind of hard evidence? Hopefully I don't need to add other examples.

My question is, why do your standards change when the claim is a religious one?

 

[We Never Know]

I am one of those guys who defer to what experts in science report. Aren’t you?

if you have questions then look to see what science reports. If they don’t have an answer then we don’t have an answer. Learn to live with uncertainty.

I reckon everyone will have to live with uncertainty of a god existing or not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..If they don’t have an answer then we don’t have an answer. Learn to live with uncertainty.

Why live with uncertainty, if one feels that there is no need?

I am certain that I can understand why Almighty God has prohibited some things, and encourages others.

What else do we really need to know?
Arguing about whether God is this or that .. or is God a man or a woman, doesn't really change our lives, does it?

Maybe it does .. maybe we have ulterior motives behind what we claim to believe.
..and God knows best.

 

[Alien826]

Then that is a huge problem for you since there is no objective evidence for God.
Can we all go home now?

Please please please, yes!

I have a theory that this thread has taken on a life of its own and would go on even if nobody posted to it. Can we test that?

 

[muhammad_isa]

My question is, why do your standards change when the claim is a religious one?

..but do they though?
If somebody can show that by following a certain way of life, you will be blessed, then why ignore that, and just say that "God cannot be proved to exist"?

..but I can understand why people argue along those lines.
Mankind often do not like change. It is easier to accept when we are younger, but it gets harder and harder .. as we get older.

..and in the end, we'll fly down south, and hide our heads in the sand,
just another sad old man, all alone..

Whoops, got sidetracked.

 

[Alien826]

So the proofs and evidence is clear only to those who already believe?

Not quite, I think. It says

if the eye of inner vision be opened, a hundred thousand clear proofs will be seen

It's actually not that different from what we skeptics say. We'd believe it if we could just see it (have direct evidence of it). In a way it's like saying, "you would be convinced that bacteria exist if you had a microscope, as I do".

What we need now is some reason to believe that this "inner eye" exists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

people like @TagliatelliMonster and @Valjean disagree with us, they claim (as if it were an almost certain fact) that organism evolved mainly through the so called Darwinian mechanism (random variation + natural selection)

I'm pretty sure that my opinion is exactly the same as theirs. I also consider it extremely likely that the eye evolved naturalistically - almost certainly. The only alternative I can conceive of is a deceptive intelligent designer, which is the default position if evolutionary theory were ever falsified, an EXTREMELY unlikely occurrence. But I also understand the limits of knowledge and have since I understood Descartes' argument about the inaccessibility to whatever it is that lies outside the theater of consciousness. I'm also not certain that there is anything else. Hopefully, you saw and understood my comments about psychological versus philosophical doubt.

I simply challenge their claim, with the intend of showing that they are wrong

If either said that naturalistic evolution is a certainty, they spoke carelessly, but I doubt either wrote such a thing. They know what I just wrote about. The critical thinker's conclusions are ALWAYS tentative (less than 100% certitude), always proportional to the quality and quantity of available evidence, and he is ready to change his position if new evidence surfaces necessitating such a change.

If I were to say that evolutionary theory MUST be correct, I would also be saying that intelligent design can be and has been ruled out, that it is an impossibility. Yet I know of no argument, observation, experiment, or algorithm that can do that. So, I take the position I do.

Why live with uncertainty, if one feels that there is no need?

Why invent answers when one can live with uncertainty?

If somebody can show that by following a certain way of life, you will be blessed, then why ignore that, and just say that "God cannot be proved to exist"?

What does a having a god concept have to do with having an abundant life unless you think that gods actually bless lives because they are lived by a believer? Or maybe you think that without that belief you would be despondent or morally bereft. I consider myself very fortunate to have lived the life I have in large part because I gave up magical thinking and stopped spending time studying theology and attending churches, not to mention stopping giving them money. If I let a god belief dictate my life, I would probably have been raising children. My wife of 31 years might not have been interested in a Christian, and I probably wouldn't have dated an atheist. We travelled the world instead and performed music in assorted venues for years. She's standing right beside me now dancing to a Spanish version of Hotel California. We always did our own thinking. And that landed us in Mexico. Her religious family members in the States are also Trump republicans and have never visited us here out of fear. I wouldn't trade my life for a different life. Does that make you want to unbelieve in God? Probably not.

 

[leroy]

I am one of those guys who defer to what experts in science report. Aren’t you?

if you have questions then look to see what science reports. If they don’t have an answer then we don’t have an answer. Learn to live with uncertainty.

I am one of those guys who defer to what experts in science report. Aren’t you?

if you have questions then look to see what science reports. If they don’t have an answer then we don’t have an answer. Learn to live with uncertainty.

I am ok with uncertainty.

All I did was to challenge @Valjean and @TagliatelliMonster that claimed to be certain on the claim that organisms evolve by the Darwinian mechanism

 

[Spirit of Light]

To me the contradiction lies in the two parts of your posts I have bolded.

In what way would you say it is an contradicton?
To see or hear something spiritual i think we can not purly use our physical eyes or ears.