Evidence

[F1fan]

Just for the sake of argument, let's say that God exists.

Thanks for acknowledging that there isn't any God known to exist.

What would be evidence? If God exists, how could God be verified?

Any of a large set of miracles. Since I have first hand experiences of families that have had children with cancers (which I find horrendous) I would be very impressed if children would no longer be born with defects and cancers, and any other fatal childhood disease. Why can't God do that, except that it doesn't exist. Or perhaps a God does exist, but just not in the way most believe, and it is powerless to do anything.

I don't see where that puts you at any advantage. If atheists are claiming that God does not exist then they have to defend that position. Can you prove that God does not exist?

This isn't what atheists do. Your challenge here has to ASSUME a God exists, and then a case made against the apparent existence. We can't prove negatives. But atheists have the advantage because we defer to the logical default of skepticism. We hear a claim, and we automatically request evidence for it. If there is inadequate evidence, or none, then we reject the claim as baseless. True claims have evidence. False claims have weak or no evidence. God claims have weak or zero evidence, so we default to not being convinced as the claim is baseless.

It is agnostics who have the neutral position, since they say they don't know if God exists or not.

I argue that we are all agnostic. Where it comes to religious concepts, no one can know. They aren't factual or logical.

There is no debate to be had between believers and agnostics, since agnostics have nothing to bring to the table.

Agnostics don't have to, they have no burden of proof.

 

[Ella S.]

Well that is simply incorrect about it not being evidence. Billions do accept a Messenger, a Revelation and the Written Word as evidence.

I don't care if the entire world except for me accepts it as evidence. Anyone who sees it as evidence is incorrect. That's all there is to it.

God encompasses the past, present and future, all the seen and unseen worlds. God is outside of time. All creation emanates from God, the nature of reality includes all of the past and the future. The evidence of this is contained in the Word of God and is proof of this statement. That Word confirms the past and tells of the future.

If you had the Word of God, then I'd agree that it was evidence of God. You don't have the Word of God.

All you have are the words of men putting words in the mouth of God and your insistence that rationality is mindlessly taking their claims at face value. That's not rationality. That's gullibility.

 

[Alien826]

It is because God has created us with intelligence and a conscience.
It is psychological. It is the way our minds work.
If we seek truth in earnest, then "God" comes towards us.
i.e. our spiritual eyes are opened

Intelligent inquiry without sincerity does not lead to the same result.
It is an intentional part of our souls.

So ...

If you inquire with sincerity, God comes to you. If God doesn't come to you, you must have not been sincere, because if you are sincere God comes to you. How do we recognize sincerity? By whether God comes to you.

Do you not see the illogicality of that?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The very nature of God, such as existing before time and space, creating time, having a mind without a physical brain, etc. makes God completely impossible. We know that there isn't a God in reality.

Umm .. what are you talking about?
Einstein showed that the passing of time is a perception .. "albeit, a persistent one".

The mistake you are making is in assuming that time is purely a property of the universe.
Of course, if we define time as a property of the universe, then it would be circular reasoning to deduce that that is all it is.

The concept of eternity does not need the space-time continuum to be valid. It only requires "being" of some kind.
..hence the "I will be what I will be" in Judaism.

The assumption that a plant does not have feelings, because it doesn't have a brain is unfounded. You cannot KNOW that .. it is an assumption.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Which pharaoh do you think drowned with his army?

This one? --------> Akhenaten - Wikipedia

..or was it this one? -------> Necho II - Wikipedia

There were so many weren't there?

.and then it might be ---------> Ramesses II - Wikipedia

 

[Alien826]

You mean, why do people believe in things that they can't see?
I think I would still believe in a Creator, but without the existence of the Bible and Qur'an, I would not have much knowledge.
..but that is all hypothetical, because they DO exist, and I don't just find them credible, but compelling !

Not quite. I meant that, typically people don't just believe things with some reason to do so, though in some case the evidence is tenuous.

You reply that you do have reason to believe what you do, that is you do have evidence. Fair enough, but I was responding to this statement of yours ..

"Belief is not about empirical evidence"

It seems to me that in practice you very much do use empirical evidence to form your beliefs. As you should!

 

[Ella S.]

Oh, I don't know..
It is a sure sign that something is going on. It is evidence, but whether it is valid evidence, is for us to decide for ourselves.
That's the purpose of a jury. They have to decide for themselves.

Actually, it's the job of the judge to decide what evidence is admissable as valid in a court. It's the job of the jury to decide which argument based on that evidence is the strongest.

Submitted evidence, if it is found to be invalid, is rejected before something ever even goes to trial, if it does. The jury never gets to see it.

 

[F1fan]

The Claim is supported by the only Evidence God Gives us.

Before you can refer to any God as existing you need to demonstrate that it exists as a fact. Since you haven't this statement above is by default rejected.

The Person
The Revelation
THE Message.

I have covered this in posts to others, refer to them.

We know people exist, and they write revelations with messages. We can't assume any of it comes from any God until you can demonstrate facts that suport your claims. Until then we reject what you claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This one? --------> Akhenaten - Wikipedia

Do you really think so?

Only one military campaign is known for certain under Akhenaten's reign. In his second or twelfth year,[111] Akhenaten ordered his Viceroy of Kush Tuthmose to lead a military expedition to quell a rebellion and raids on settlements on the Nile by Nubian nomadic tribes.

Akhenaten died after seventeen years of rule and was initially buried in a tomb in the Royal Wadi east of Akhetaten.

You think that a pharoah who:

- is only known to have ever waged war against the Nubians, and

- was buried in a tomb

... is your pharoah who:

- went to war against the fleeing Israelites, and

- was lost - along with his army - at the bottom of the Red Sea.

Really?

 

[Ella S.]

Umm .. what are you talking about?
Einstein showed that the passing of time is a perception .. "albeit, a persistent one".

The mistake you are making is in assuming that time is purely a property of the universe.

Spacetime is indeed the fabric of the universe, which Einstein helped form our understanding of. The passing of time is not an illusion but a facet of motion through the temporal dimension. It's relative, but not false. You're taking Einstein out of context to defend a misunderstanding.

Of course, if we define time as a property of the universe, then it would be circular reasoning to deduce that that is all it is.

Time could indeed precede this universe, such as in some variations of multiverse theory or even the simulation theory. The problem is that God is said to be outside of or before time entirely.

The concept of eternity does not need the space-time continuum to be valid. It only requires "being" of some kind.

Eternity, or endless time, would indeed require the existence of time. It has very little to do with "being" at all. Unless you're defining eternity in some intentionally obtuse theological way that's completely different from how it's used elsewhere.

The assumption that a plant does not have feelings, because it doesn't have a brain is unfounded. You cannot KNOW that .. it is an assumption.

I never said that a plant doesn't have feelings, but the "brain" here wasn't a reference to the human brain. Plants do have complex networks similar to our nervous systems, so it's possible that they have minds. Some studies a decade or so ago showed that they might have some basic emotional responses, although I haven't been following that research.

The problem is that a "mind" is a physical, material thing. It's a collection of matter that interacts with itself in a very specific way. Minds just don't exist without matter.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Ahh, there is the crux. The definition of truth i use is "that which is true in accordance with fact or reality"
Most people claiming religious truth seem to use an alternative definition "a belief that is accepted as true."

There are other levels of consciousness that go beyond just believing or having faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does not imply that all theistic religion is false. It implies that since it cannot be known whether God exists it cannot be known whether a theistic religion is true or false.

Yes, it does imply that it's all false.

If the existence of God is unknowable, the the claims of any "messenger" or scripture about God are necessarily all baseless crap.

It doesn't work to say "we can't tell whether God exists in the first place, but we know that Baha'u'llah or whoever is his representative on Earth and that he's given us God's revelation for humanity."

If God is unknowable, then every single thing that would establish God's existence if it were true must all be false.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't care if the entire world except for me accepts it as evidence. Anyone who sees it as evidence is incorrect. That's all there is to it..

I assume that you are being sarcastic..
If not, then it smacks of arrogance, don't you think?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes, if adequate evidence for a God is found I would change my mind. There are those that disregard evidence due to what they say that they believe in. When one states that one has a lack of belief due to a lack of evidence they are essentially saying "Show me the evidence and I will change my mind."

No one has yet to show me any reliable evidence.

That’s fair enough. I agree you should not accept God exists until you find satisfactory answers. I was the same. I had great difficulty with that too so I understand your skepticism.

 

[Ella S.]

I assume that you are being sarcastic..
If not, then it smacks of arrogance, don't you think?

No, not at all. I think refusing to allow myself to give into the fallacy of an Argumentum ad Populum is the exact opposite of arrogance. It's using proper logical methodology to form a conclusion, despite the social stigma that might be attached to it.

It would be arrogant if I continued that belief after being shown that it was incorrect, such as continuing to believe that the OP has actually provided evidence of the existence of God despite this being refuted in several ways through relevant evidence and argumentation.

You only think it's arrogant because I'm not willing to agree with you when you're wrong, which is total nonsense.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..The problem is that God is said to be outside of or before time entirely..

There is no such thing as "before time"..
That is a concept that is derived from extrapolating back to the "big-bang".
It concerns "time" as is defined in relation to physical space.

Eternity, or endless time, would indeed require the existence of time. It has very little to do with "being" at all. Unless you're defining eternity in some intentionally obtuse theological way that's completely different from how it's used elsewhere..

One shouldn't confuse philosophical time with the scientific definition.
Naturally, the scientific definition is based on physical observation, which says little about what time and space may be outside of our universe.

I never said that a plant doesn't have feelings, but the "brain" here wasn't a reference to the human brain. Plants do have complex networks similar to our nervous systems, so it's possible that they have minds..

Makes sense to me..

The problem is that a "mind" is a physical, material thing. It's a collection of matter that interacts with itself in a very specific way. Minds just don't exist without matter.

Again, we can't observe minds, we can only make assumptions about them, through "poking about in people's heads" and what not.

 

[F1fan]

No, you are twisting his words.
He said: Billions do accept a Messenger, a Revelation and the Written Word as evidence"

He did not mention whether it was true or not .. just that they considered it as evidence.

I twisted nothing. He stated that it's believed by many as if that means something. It doesn't. It only means many believe in something, that's all.

So why would he even bring it up if that was something he understood? He wouldn't.

This is one tactic by theists wh have no direct evidence, they make statements that imply truth, and then allows enough ambiguity that they can deny it.

The evidence then needs to be examined and validated. In reality, it is not a black and white issue, as you try to make out.

That is exactly what critical thinkers do, at the great frustration of theists. The extraordinary claims of theists require extraordinary evidence.

...and what is the point of continually repeating "no empirical evidence of gods" .. do you really think it enlightens anybody?

It comes after every false claim of there being a God of some sort. Want to show you are correct? Demonstrate that some sort of God exists outside of human imagination. You haven't yet.

It is because God has created us with intelligence and a conscience.

An unverified claim, so prove it.

It is psychological. It is the way our minds work.
If we seek truth in earnest, then "God" comes towards us.

Yet another claim with no evidence, so we dismiss it.

Intelligent inquiry without sincerity does not lead to the same result.
It is an intentional part of our souls.

How about more emphasis on rational thinking, if you are going to be sincere.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You only think it's arrogant because I'm not willing to agree with you when you're wrong, which is total nonsense.

That is not true.

What you are saying is that the fact that a lot of people believe that the Bible and/or Qur'an are not made-up stories, does not make them right.
I would agree with that.

..but it is NOT a reason in itself, that they are wrong, either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s fair enough. I agree you should not accept God exists until you find satisfactory answers. I was the same. I had great difficulty with that too so I understand your skepticism.

People should remember what convinced them probably would not convince anyone else, especially if it is not objective evidence. I do not go around yelling "You're wrong!!" to theists. But I will correct theists that try to claim that they have rational evidence when they do not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

He stated that it's believed by many as if that means something..

Of course it means something !
Are you trying to say that these people are all stupid, or do not care one way or another about what is true?

We all know about Arg, pop. -- that should not just be used as an excuse, for non-significance.
Arg, pop merely states that a proposition is not necessarily true because many people believe it. That is all .. nothing more .. nothing less.