Evidence

[F1fan]

Total nonsense.

Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Notice the list doesn't include religious dogma, of which the biggest character is God.

We can know about religions, but given the lack of evidence for any supernatural phenomenon, what religions say is NOT knowledge since it can't be confirmed or validated. We can know what religions claim, but believers can show their beliefs are knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not my problem.

Not my problem either, since I already know that God exists.

Who says we can't? Internally inconsistent gods are, by definition, impossible.

God is not internally inconsistent. Only people's conceptions of god(s) are inconsistent.

As for the ones that merely violate what we know of how the universe works, we have to satisfy ourselves by saying that they're impossible with practical certainty rather than perfect certainty.

Who said that God violates what we know about how the universe works?
God created the universe and determined how it would work, and God does not violate what He created.

Also not a great analogy, since Pluto is supported by empirical evidence.

Pluto is NOW supported by empirical evidence but there was a time when it wasn't.
The same applies to God. Atheists will have the empirical evidence after they die.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But is it a waste of time?

Maybe, maybe not? To live and learn is the way, sometimes we are quick learners, sometimes we are slow to learn.

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yahweh. Adonai. Allah. That is the Abrahamic God model. One can believe in a God that is not of that model. "God" is more ubiquitous of a term than to only relate to Christians and Muslims.

Yes, you are right.

Nevertheless, I was talking to @Subduction Zone who is an atheist. We were talking about evidence for the Abrahamic God.
..so my post was written in that context.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are some atheists that would say that there is no god with no shadow of a doubt, but I think most say that the probability of such a thing is extremely low.

I know that.

Also, we don't make the first claim. Theists claim that god exists, we disagree. It's really up to theists to present the evidence. To make this clear, can you imagine a situation where a person had never heard anything about god/s. Would he spontaneously describe something he had never heard of then start on about it not existing?

Theists believe that God exists but that is not a claim. It is the Messengers of God who claim that God exists. Theists just pass along what the Messengers have claimed about God. We present what we believe is the evidence for God - the Messengers of God - and atheists reject our evidence.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Theists believe that God exists but that is not a claim. It is the Messengers of God who claim that God exists. Theists just pass along what the Messengers have claimed about God. We present what we believe is the evidence for God - the Messengers of God - and atheists reject our evidence.

Still, while the messenger shouldn't be persecuted simply for a message itself, they still must take accountability for how that message is presented, to who, and when.

 

[F1fan]

So now we have evidence, but you see it is empty of facts.

Yes, it is a fact that your claims (that you call "evidence") lacks facts. No God is known to exist outsid eof human imagination. We can't accept the claim that Baha'u'llah is a messenger because that outlandish claim needs exceptional evidence. There is none. You've cited you own belief (irrelevant), and cited the belief of many millions (irrelevant) and keep making false and misleading claims about your beliefs as if they are factual, and that is blatant fraud. You show no humility, and no concession to criticisms.

At least now we agree it is evidence and that is what the OP was about.

You think it is adequate evidence (of course, because you use self-validating thinking), and I reveal that it is absent of evidence (because it is absent of evidence).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, you are right.

Nevertheless, I was talking to @Subduction Zone who is an atheist. We were talking about evidence for the Abrahamic God.
..so my post was written in that context.

I would like to see some reliable evidence for any God.

Please note, no one has even attempted to properly define what God is here.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps you can explain, on any other subject but god, why would someone just decide to believe something for which he has no evidence? So why do it for god?

There is evidence for God, although there is no proof. Evidence is not proof.

People believe many things with evidence when there is no proof. For example, in a court of law, when there is no actual proof that a murder was committed the jury has to decide if the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We can know about religions, but given the lack of evidence for any supernatural phenomenon, what religions say is NOT knowledge since it can't be confirmed or validated..

No, you are adding another dimension to the word "knowledge",
by claiming it only refers to scientifically provable things. It doesn't.
History is not provable, and neither are many other subjects.

The popular notion that only the sciences have any value is quite ironic, considering how mankind is destroying others with missiles, and destroying their environment causing widespread mental illness and cancers, amongst other things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is evidence for God, although there is no proof. Evidence is not proof.

People believe many things with evidence when there is no proof. For example, in a court of law, when there is no actual proof that a murder was committed the jury has to decide if the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

There may be very weak evidence for a god, but there does not appear to be any rational or reliable evidence for a god. In other words, people cannot seem to justify their beliefs.

If a theist merely said "I believe this" everyone would accept that they believe that. But when one says "I have evidence for this" then it must be demonstrated. If one does not try to improperly justify one's beliefs people will leave you alone.

 

[F1fan]

No, you are adding another dimension to the word "knowledge",
by claiming it only refers to scientifically provable things. It doesn't.

That would be "limiting", not adding. And I only clarified what knowledge is NOT, and that is religious dogma.

We can know religious dogma, be we can't know religious dogma is true, therefore it defaults to untrue. Sorry, rules of logic.

History is not provable, and neither are many other subjects.

What do you mean "not provable"? Like it's not provable that Muhammad was an actual person?

The popular notion that only the sciences have any value is quite ironic, considering how mankind is destroying others with missiles, and destroying their environment causing widespread mental illness and cancers, amongst other things.

You sound envious that religions can't demonstrate truth like science can. That's the liability of aligning with a religion, you won't have a reliable truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

It is only impossible for people who would believe that if God existed, God would be a person with a physical brain.
There is nothing more ludicrous than believing that if God existed God would in any way resemble a human being.
We know that there is no such God in reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is only impossible for people who would believe that if God existed, God would be a person with a physical brain.
There is nothing more ludicrous than believing that if God existed God would in any way resemble a human being.
We know that there is no such God in reality.

No, that is a strawman argument. Don't blame others when you cannot provide proper evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

That is not what I said. Some of us know that God exists.

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.

A better question is why God should perform miracles just to prove to a few atheists that He exists?
God is not powerless just because God does not do what you want Him to do. That is completely illogical.

Why should God use His power to do what you want Him to do? Any God that took marching orders from humans would not be omnipotent. The omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do, period.

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.

God claims have good evidence, the ONLY evidence that God has EVER provided, the Messengers.
The fact that atheists do not recognize the Messengers as evidence does not make them non-evidence.
If Jesus Christ was not evidence for God, there will never be evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

We have the Word of God through the Messengers of God, which is the only way we will ever get it, since God is not a human being who speaks or writes. This is logic 101 stuff.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

And you know that how? You have a personal opinion, not knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not what I said. Some of us know that God exists.[/quite]

Not from what I have seen here. So far people have supported my claim that they only believe strongly that a God exists.

Once again, knowledge is demonstrable. How would you prove that a God exists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have the Word of God through the Messengers of God, which is the only way we will ever get it, since God is not a human being who speaks or writes. This is logic 101 stuff.

The Messengers all appear to be failed when investigated. Why believe them?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

That is only what agnostics believe, but that does not mean that the existence of God is unknowable, or that 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.

God is not entirely unknowable.

"God communicates his will and purpose to humanity through intermediaries, known as Manifestations of God, who are the prophets and messengers that have founded religions from prehistoric times up to the present day.[5]

While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.

The Baháʼí teachings state that God is too great for humans to create an accurate conception of. In the Baháʼí understanding, the attributes attributed to God, such as All-Powerful and All-Loving are derived from limited human experiences of power and love. Baháʼu'lláh taught that the knowledge of God is limited to those attributes and qualities which are perceptible to us, and thus direct knowledge of God is not possible. Furthermore, Baháʼu'lláh states that knowledge of the attributes of God is revealed to humanity through his messengers.[12] "

From: God in the Baháʼí Faith