If God existed, would there be any atheists?

[Spirit of Light]

I wonder why? Do you think it could be lack of falsifiable evidence?

Well to me all the evidence is there, in teaching, in sign in nature, in real life when something happens, in highten understanding and wisdom from Cultivation of a spiritual teaching.

The reason i think atheists does not get the "answere" they think they should get, is that they do not cultivate their mind and body, and then they do not tune the mind and body to higher frequense of the mind. And that result in that they can not pick up the same understanding and wisdom as one who do cultivate mind and body.

And that lead to, no matter what a spiritual person tell them, they do not believe because they dont get a "solidevidence" that "prove" the word of the spiritual person.

The answer is not thrown Airbus, it is hard work very day to realize the truth.

 

[ChristineM]

Well to me all the evidence is there, in teaching, in sign in nature, in religion in life when something happens, in highten understanding and wisdom from Cultivation of a spiritual teaching.

The reason i think atheists does not get the "answere" the think they should get, is that they do not cultivate their mind and body, and then they do not tune the mind and body to higher frequense of the mind. And that result in that they can not pick up the same understanding and wisdom as one who do cultivate mind and body.

And that lead to, no matter what a spiritual person tell them, they do not believe because they dont get a "solidevidence" that "prove" the word of the spiritual person.

The answer is not thrown Airbus, it is hard work very day to realize the truth.

So that is opinion, sure it's your belief but it is certainly not falsifiable evidence.

Atheist do have the answer they think they should get, an answer based on solid no evidence... and dreaming is just dreaming, an atheist is usually capable of recognising this

 

[Spirit of Light]

So that is opinion, sure it's your belief but it is certainly not falsifiable evidence.

Atheist do have the answer they think they should get, an answer based on solid no evidence... and dreaming is just dreaming, an atheist is usually capable of recognising this

You call it a dream, and that is ok. I know from being spiritual most of my life that it is not a dream, it is hard work mentally and many 1000 of hours of study to get to a Pont where the "evidence" arise to be understood and used to further advancement in the spiritual path.

The evidence is personal, and will be different from person to person. So no there is no physical " evidence" you can touch with your hand.

 

[ChristineM]

You call it a dream, and that is ok. I know from being spiritual most of my life that it is not a dream, it is hard work mentally and many 1000 of hours of study to get to a Pont where the "evidence" arise to be understood and used to further advancement in the spiritual path.

The evidence is personal, and will be different from person to person. So no there is no physical " evidence" you can touche with your hand.

Ok but surely a process of imagination

Falsifiable evidence is not different for each person. If it becomes different then it is falsified and hence not valid evidence but belief

 

[Trailblazer]

I wonder why? Do you think it could be lack of falsifiable evidence?

We were talking about how God operates, not about the evidence.
With all due respect, atheists are obsessed with evidence, so they fail to see how God operates.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Ok but surely a process of imagination

Falsifiable evidence is not different for each person. If it becomes different then it is falsified and hence not valid evidence but belief

Only when a spiritual person realize enlightenment will he/She know for sure that what the faith told them was fully true. It is not one singel answer to a spiritual path, it is many many layers of answers getting uncovered on the way to enlightenment, so very different then science. So honesty in my understanding For an atheists to understand what spiritual people talk about as evidence the atheists has to go the same path of spiritual Cultivation.

This is the problem between atheists and spiritual person the are on different player of understanding the spiritual practice. But i understand it can never satisfy the atheists to get the answer that can be given.

 

[ChristineM]

We were talking about how God operates, not about the evidence.
With all die respect, atheists are obsessed with evidence, so they fail to see how God operates.

Without the evidence you have nothing to show
Of course atheists like evidence, without it all you have is opinion

 

[ChristineM]

Only when a spiritual person realize enlightenment will he/She know for sure that what the faith told them was fully true. It is not one singel answer to a spiritual path, it is many many layers of answers getting uncovered on the way to enlightenment, so very different then science. So honesty in my understanding For an atheists to understand what spiritual people talk about as evidence the atheists has to go the same path of spiritual Cultivation.

This is the problem between atheists and spiritual person the are on different player of understanding the spiritual practice. But i understand it can never satisfy the atheists to get the answer that can be given.

I believe i have gone the same path on a different subject. 3D graphics, no, don't laugh. I have spend 1000s of hours studying, learning, examining the layers to become as good as it is possible to be (enlightened). So yes, atheists can understand, they simply rationalise the experience differently. And it results in knowledge, understanding, insight, all in your own mind, as such it is belief, not evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Falsifiable evidence is not different for each person. If it becomes different then it is falsified and hence not valid evidence but belief

There is no logical reason why the evidence for God would be the same for everyone because humans differ markedly in their ways of thinking so there is no reason to assume humans would think the same way about the evidence.

There is no logical reason why there would be testable evidence for God's existence and many logical reasons why there cannot ever be that kind of evidence.

Objective verifiable evidence can never be obtained for God because God is an immaterial being. That has to be accepted as the premise, so if you cannot accept that, you are dead in the water on all matters related to God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Without the evidence you have nothing to show.

There is evidence but it will never be evidence to everyone because all people look at the evidence differently.

Of course atheists like evidence, without it all you have is opinion

Atheists like evidence but they won't accept the only evidence God provides. That is illogical because the only way we can ever get evidence of God's existence is from God.

 

[ChristineM]

There is no logical reason why the evidence for God would be the same for everyone because humans differ markedly in their ways of thinking so there is no reason to assume humans would think the same way about the evidence.

There is no logical reason why there would be testable evidence for God's existence and many logical reasons why there cannot ever be that kind of evidence.

Objective verifiable evidence can never be obtained for God because God is an immaterial being. That has to be accepted as the premise, so if you cannot accept that, you are dead in the water on all matters related to God.

Therefore the evidence is falsified and hence,is not valid

And i think you are misusing the word logical

 

[ChristineM]

There is evidence but it will never be evidence to everyone because all people look at the evidence differently.

Atheists like evidence but they won't accept the only evidence God provides. That is illogical because the only way we can ever get evidence of God's existence is from God.

See post 151

 

[Spirit of Light]

I believe i have gone the same path on a different subject. 3D graphics, no, don't laugh. I have spend 1000s of hours studying, learning, examining the layers to become as good as it is possible to be (enlightened). So yes, atheists can understand, they simply rationalise the experience differently. And it results in knowledge, understanding, insight, all in your own mind, as such it is belief, not evidence.

Your answer is very good, yes you would understand how spiritual people gain wisdom by many 1000 hours of study, because you used the same techniques to study 3D graphics. Different field and different thinking but both give wisdom

 

[Trailblazer]

Therefore the evidence is falsified and hence,is not valid.

Please explain what you mean by falsified and how you think the evidence is falsified..

And i think you are misusing the word logical

How am I misusing it? If something is logical it makes sense. It makes no sense to expect to be able to verify a God that is immaterial, and a God that does not want to be verified. How would you go about doing that? Please bear in mind that you cannot make an omnipotent God do what He does not chose to do since you are not omnipotent.

It is not logical to say that evidence is what makes God exist because God could exist and provide no evidence of His existence. (That is not the case, but I am just saying it is logically possible.)

The point is that God either exists or not, and that has nothing to do with the evidence.
Let's say a man committed a murder and there was no evidence that could be found that would prove that in a court of law. The fact that the evidence could not be found and presented does not mean the man did not commit the murder. The man still committed the murder if he committed it, that is the reality or the situation.

Now let's apply that to God. Let's say that atheists cannot find the evidence for God, or they do not believe the evidence that believers present is really evidence. If God exists, God exists, that is the reality, so it does not matter if atheists ever find the evidence or believe in the evidence believers present.

The point is that evidence is not what makes God exist, evidence is simply what rational people require to believe that God exists. However, it is irrational to expect to have the kind of evidence atheists require because God does not provide that kind of evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

yes you would understand how spiritual people gain wisdom by many 1000 hours of study,

I admire you for all your hours of study, but it was not necessary for me to study much to realize that God exists....
Gaining wisdom and becoming more spiritual is another matter.... that takes work and time.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I admire you for all your hours of study, but it was not necessary for me to study much to realize that God exists....
Gaining wisdom and becoming more spiritual is another matter.... that takes work and time.

To realize that God or gods, Buddhas and so on exist did not take me 1000 hours but to realize the teachings i been studying all my life, from bible, buddhist suttas, zhuan Falun and to gain wisdom from them, so the realization of spiritual life become more easy, and to become a better person, the Cultivation of mind and body, that in it self has tåken many 1000 of hours

To realize that spiritual beings are real is only a tiny bit of the path. The big part is the changing of the way we are as human beings, and understanding of that we are infact spiritual beings our self trappes in a human body.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then we wouldn't be able to know it, regardless of how important it would be to know it.

That depends upon what you mean by know. There are different ways of knowing and all of them do not involve verification.

Know: be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.https://www.google.com/search

Know: to have information in your mind; to be aware of something: KNOW | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

But I can make informed guesses and predictions, based on knowledge of the past as well as the present.

There is no reason to think we cannot break out of the past.

There's also no reason to think that the future won't be a continuation of past trends, if all else stays the same.

There is a reason, and God has revealed the reason why through Baha’u’llah. We are living in a new age and this is a day that won’t be followed by night, as has happened in the past. The past will not be repeated this time around because humanity has entered a whole new religious cycle, called the Cycle of Fulfillment.

Do you watch the news, world and U.S. news? The world is changing and humanity is moving forward, and we will never be the same as we were in the past. Signs of this are now seen on the world. The old world order is falling down and a new world order is rising in our midst just as Baha’u’llah predicted 150 years ago.

“Beseech ye the one true God to grant that all men may be graciously assisted to fulfil that which is acceptable in Our sight. Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth, and is the Knower of things unseen.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 7

In fact, barring the kill-all-disbelievers scenario, I actually think it's also more likely that religion disappears completely rather then one religion being followed by all humans. And I find religion disappearing completely unlikely for the foreseeable future.

You are completely wrong about that.

Since the year 2000, religion has made resurgence whereas atheism and agnosticism are on the decline.

The growth rates of the Abrahamic religions from 1910-2010 were as follows: Judaism .11%, Christianity 1.32%, Islam 1.97%, and Baha’i Faith 3.54%.

Atheism was growing at a rate of 6.54% from 1910-2010 but dropped to a growth rate of 0.05% from 2000-2010. Agnosticism was growing at a rate of 5.45% from 1910-2010 but dropped to a growth rate of 0.32% from 2000-2010. That demonstrates that both atheism and agnosticism are on the decline but also that there are many more agnostics than atheists.

Statistics from: Growth of religion - Wikipedia

The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050

Atheism growing? No, atheism is actually on the decline!

Nope. Just a human who considers the data and draws a conclusion based on that data.

Then I suggest you look at the data I presented above.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, I know you are trying to make it look as if these are equivalents - but they are not.

There is no independently verifiable evidence for gods, which is why "faith" is required.
But there is independently verifiable evidence for evolution and spherical planets, which is why "faith" is not required.

So they are not equivalent.

I never said that science and religion were equivalent, so if you try to apply the same standards of evidence that is illogical.

Also, I have no clue what you are refering to with "...despite the fact that their behavior has no other logical explanation"

I meant that there is no other logical explanation for the behavior of the Messengers of God other than that they got a message from God. I know all the counter arguments, that they might have been con-men or delusional, but there is no evidence to support that and there is evidence that refutes that.

Trailblazer said: And there never will be any independently verifiable evidence for God.

Then there will never be a rationally justified reason to believe that God exists.

Not for you and the other atheists, but lack of that kind of evidence does not mean God does not exist.

Trailblazer said: because God is not a material entity that can be verified in the material world.

Then he is indistinguishable from a non-existant thing.
As the saying goes: The undetectable and the non-existant, look very much alike.

Indistinguishable to you.
There is no reason to think that humans would be able to detect everything that exists.

I'm not going to speak for other people, but this atheist is merely letting you know what his standard is for believing something / accepting something as "true".

I require independently verifiable evidence.
Independently verifiable evidence, is my standard by which I distinguish the existing from the non-existing with the best accuracy possible.

An immaterial God cannot be verified independently so unless you accept Messengers of God as evidence of God you are dead in the water.

That you believe in something which by definition can never be shown to be real, which isn't testable or verifiable in any manner, which isn't falsifiable... is not my "fault".

That you do not believe in something which by definition can never be shown to be real, which isn't testable or verifiable in any manner, which isn't falsifiable... is not my "fault".

It is not a matter of fault, people just have different standards of evidence.

I'm letting you know that I have exactly zero reasons to believe a claim like that. Such claims are infinite in number. They are useless and more importantly: they are not a pathway to truth.

Chances are rather enormous that you'll only end up believing something false and virtually non-existing that you'd be correct.

I don't. I consider it reasonable to not believe those things that are unprovable, unsupportable, undefendable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable, untestable,...

Fine then, if you require all those things, you will never believe in God. It won’t affect God in any manner shape or form becauae God does not need the belief of anyone, since God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining.

Then let's not pretend as if it is equally reasonable to believe demonstrable / supportable / provable claims as it is to believe undemonstrable / unsupportable / unprovable claims.

I believe in the claims of Baha’u’llah because they are supportable and demonstrable.
Because I believe in the claims of Baha’u’llah, I believe God exists.

Trailblazer said: That would be quote impossible for God or the soul or the spiritual world to be verifiable since they are all immaterial.

Then how could you possible know them to be real?

Because of what Baha’u’llah wrote about them.

How does the untestable, unverifable and unfalsifiable differ from the non-existant?

One exists and the other does not.

 

[Trailblazer]

To realize that spiritual beings are real is only a tiny bit of the path. The big part is the changing of the way we are as human beings, and understanding of that we are in fact spiritual beings our self trapped in a human body.

You might like this letter that I posted on another thread last night, and this could apply to any religion or any Prophet, since they all reveal the same spiritual teachings which are eternal:

"Our past is not the thing that matters so much in this world as what we intend to do with our future. The inestimable value of religion is that when a man is vitally connected with it, through a real and living belief in it and in the Prophet Who brought it, he receives a strength greater than his own which helps him to develop his good characteristics and overcome his bad ones. The whole purpose of religion is to change not only our thoughts but our acts; when we believe in God and His Prophet and His Teachings, we find we are growing, even though we perhaps thought ourselves incapable of growth and change!"
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, October 3, 1943)

Lights of Guidance (second part)

 

[Trailblazer]

Lots of things have withstood that scrutiny.

Good.

Would it convince ALL atheists? Of course not, for reasons which I explained in post 52.

But I can assure you that it would go a long way towards convincing me. Despite what you may think, I (and many other atheists) are not anti-God fanatics that will go out of their way to deny any and all evidence for God. When provided with good evidence for God, we will change our minds.

Unfortunately, what atheists consider good evidence is not the kind of evidence that God provides.

Different arguments for God are based on different logical fallacies. If you give me an example of something you consider evidence for God, I will tell you the logical fallacy.

I believe that Messengers of God are evidence for God. What is the logical fallacy?