If it could be proved no god exists

[ecco]

You misunderstood me, friend. I am an atheist... I don't believe in ANY of this crap.

I was merely asking our theistic-minded friend, @MJFlores, to prove to me that Thor doesn't exist because I wanted this person to realize that that task CANNOT be done. Not by anyone. And yet this person does not believe in Thor. And then I wanted this person to realize that they simply dismiss Thor (as do I) because there is not good evidence for Thor. And then I wanted this person to put two-and-two together (I know, a tall ask) and realize that I do not believe in their God, nor Thor, nor Vishnu, nor any other god for that same reason. Basically - that these gods all had their "Day in the sun" - they all had their texts and worshippers, and that Christianity (or any of the Abrahamic religions) is NOT some special case. It has the same forms and caliber of evidence as any of those others. So where is the justification to believe one set of hearsay and not another? There is no good justification.

Apologies. I realized my mistake after the fact.

Oh, well. Maybe MJF read my post.

 

[ecco]

If you can prove "beyond any shadow of doubt that no god has ever existed," I will happily become an atheist. Good luck with that.

You already are an atheist in regard to the vast majority of gods created by man's imaginings.

 

[PruePhillip]

Even Christians do not believe that The Heavens created the world we live in, they believe god created the heavens and the world we live in.

If you are asking what the source of the Big Bang was or what preceded it, then the honest answer is "we don't know".

Well, if the "heavens" didn't create life then the earth created life.
And the earth is a part of the heavens.
It's all down to terminology - these guys thought planets were
wandering stars and the heavens revolved above them.

 

[PruePhillip]

Where did you get your information that anyone who believed in this theory was driven out of academies, lost tenure or had their careers destroyed? Was it from an anti-science website like Plate Tectonics—The Reality Behind a Theory
who write...

When Alfred Wegener proposed a version of this theory in 1912, fellow scientists accused him of “pseudoscience,” “delirious ravings,” and suffering from “moving crust disease.”

No one wants to sound like Wegener’s original close-minded, shrill opponents.
​

Note the quotes without attribution. Which fellow scientists made those accusations? The article doesn't say and the folks at AIG hope you'll just unquestioningly believe it. That's a ploy often used in AIG.

However, scientists had good reason to reject Wegener's original proposals...
(my emphases)

Continental Drift: Theory & Definition
But geologists soundly denounced Wegener's theory of continental drift after he published the details in a 1915 book called "The Origin of Continents and Oceans." Part of the opposition was because Wegener didn't have a good model to explain how the continents moved apart.

Though most of Wegener's observations about fossils and rocks were correct, he was outlandishly wrong on a couple of key points. For instance, Wegener thought the continents might have plowed through the ocean crust like icebreakers smashing through ice. ​

The thing about science is that you can't just say stuff, you have to provide sound reasoning.

Nevertheless, please list some of the people who lost tenure or had their careers destroyed for supporting continental drift.

It actually came from a Readers Digest article back in the late '60's.
I take it as factual.
Lots of new science can be a career destroying - it's just that
plate tectonics was likely the biggest career destroyer that I know
of in my life time.

 

[PruePhillip]

I sense someone is about to present a bunch of pseudo-science woo.

The theory postulates that nuggets of strange matter would punch right through the
earth. This matter is attracted to gravity so would spiral inwards to the earth's core.
We don't know - but the maths looks good to show its possible. And in science, as
they say, "If it's possible then its compulsory."

The pre-death comes from people like Peter Fenwick. His research is quite
scientific. He studied the experiences of many people facing death. Not only the
people dying but those who cared for them.

 

[MJFlores]

theistic-minded friend, @MJFlores,

I would have preferred a better description - God fearing MJFlores.

as the Bible says:

1 Corinthians 8:5-7 New International Version (NIV)
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.


But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.

 

[Shad]

I wonder what would be the reaction of theists if evidence was discovered which proved beyond any shadow of doubt that no god has ever existed, and all faiths are created by humans?

A lot of suicides and violence. I have heard enough religious people admit the only reason they are not killing people is because of God and the threats about the afterlife.

 

[Katzpur]

You already are an atheist in regard to the vast majority of gods created by man's imaginings.

A theist only needs to believe in one god. To be an atheist, you con't believe in any. So, you're wrong. I'm not an atheist in any sense of the word.

 

[Trailblazer]

That isn't evidence.

It is the best evidence you are going to get and it is the best evidence God has ever provided.

There are legitimate reasons why God does not come on down and show ALL of Himself:

“Were the Eternal Essence to manifest all that is latent within Him, were He to shine in the plentitude of His glory, none would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. Nay, all created things would be so dazzled and thunderstruck by the evidences of His light as to be reduced to utter nothingness. How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 71-72

 

[Trailblazer]

If leprechauns exist then leprechauns exist. I am not implying anything about belief. I am not saying you should believe that leprechauns exist absent evidence.

Then what ARE you saying?

I am saying that reality is reality so if God exists, God exists and that is the reality.

The big difference here is that there is no evidence for leprechauns but there IS evidence for Messengers of God that manifest themselves in every age.

No, there isn't.
There is evidence that some people CLAIM to be such messengers or that other people BELIEVE some people to be such messengers.

But that doesn't make it correct. In fact, right out the gates we can deduce that most of these claims must be wrong as they are mutually exclusive and the can't all be correct.

There has to be a boatload of evidence that supports the CLAIM if someone was really a Messenger of God. There is really only one Messenger who would qualify in contemporary times, and there is no logical reason to look at Messengers who came hundreds or thousands of years ago, because their messages are not pertinent to the age we live in. There is only one true Messenger of God for every age in history, not several, so you need not concern yourself with contradictions. The *new* Messenger does not contradict the older Messengers either because God does not contradict Himself. God reveals *new truth* in every age, but it is additive, like building a new addition to a house; it does not conflict with what is already built.

In short: the existance of christians is not evidence for the existance of the christian god.

Well, of course not, that is highly illogical. The Bible is the evidence, the only evidence we have for Christianity.

No, Baha’u’llah had evidence to back up His claims and as such I have evidence that backs up my beliefs.

So you believe. I have yet to see any valid evidence to support the religious claims of any religion.

But that does not mean there isn’t any. I have not seen Alaska yet but Alaska is still up there.

Yes, I can prove it to myself, and that is all that matters. Why would it matter if I can prove it to others? Why would that be my responsibility?

When you say things like "i can only prove it to myself", you're essentially saying that you can't prove anything at all. That the only thing you can do is convince yourself. Making your claims and beliefs indistinguishable from self-delusion. And utterly disconnected from commonly observable reality.

I know how that sounds but I was overstating it to make a certain point, and that point is that if I *proved to you* that my religion is true to you and you believed it without getting your own proof then it would not be your decision to believe. I can provide evidence that might be convincing to you, but if you believed just because it was *evidence to me* then it would not be your own belief. A loose analogy would be if I got a college degree and then put your name on the diploma it would not be yours because you did nothing to earn it and you do not know what was necessary to get it.

Yes, they could all be wrong, but it is also possible that one of them might be right, logically speaking.

And "logically" speaking, it is far more likely that they are all wrong, seeing as NONE of them have any valid evidence in support of it and they all make the same kind of unjustified claims.

If one of them is right, why can't it be shown to be the case?

I would probably be saying the same thing if I was not a Baha’i as I would see no reason to believe any of the older religions; even though they do have some good teachings, what humans have done to mess them up has made them far from what those older Messengers of God even taught.

It cannot be *shown* that one is right, but potentially we can discover that for ourselves if we do the homework. It is a stretch but it is possible. I have several college degrees and it was not easy getting all those but I was motivated so I worked really hard. I realize not everyone is like me and it might not even be necessary to work that hard, it all depends upon the person.

Your logic is sound, so what is the solution?

Pretty easy, actually... Withhold belief until sufficient valid evidence in support of the thing is demonstrated.

Just like in a court of law.
When you don't have sufficient evidence, you rule "non guilty".
Guilt needs to be established through evidence.
I rule gods "not guilty" of existing.

That is valid to withhold belief unless there is evidence that is sufficient for you to believe, but keep in mind there might still be a God out there guilty of existing, just like that man who got found not guilty could be guilty.Conversely, you could end up believing in a god who is not guilty of existing, and that is why it is important to watch your step.

IF you care to know if God exists

I don't have any emotional investments in any gods. I don't care for them any more then I care for leprechauns etc.

Well, then there is no reason for you to go looking.

the logical solution is to do the research that is necessary to determine which religion is actually true.

Sorry, but no.
The "logical solution" is not to "do research" on just about any crazy idea any person can come up with. We'd be busy doing nonsense pointless research for our entire lifetimes, investigating every crazy claim ever uttered by people.

There are about 30.000 denominations of christianity alone. Investigating them allready would take multiple lifetimes. I have better things to do then to investigate ideas that right out the gates are already flawed to begin with (involving unfalsifiable entities and claims of magic).

Also, this smells a lot like you asking me to do your homework.

It is YOUR homework if you want to get the college degree. Why would anyone in their right mind go looking at older religions whose time/date stamp expired hundreds or thousands of years ago? Imo, that Bible should be put on the shelf, as it has seen its day.

You are the one who thinks god claims are interesting and worth doing the research. Well, go for it. If you achieve worthwhile results, I'm sure I'll read about it in the papers when you get your nobel prize for succeeding where every theists has failed for the past 8000 years.

I already did my homework 49 years ago, but I keep doing more homework as there is always more to learn.

Why do you think every theist has failed for the past 8000 years?

I myself, don't see any valid reasons to even suggest gods to begin with. I have no need for such hypothesis. Why would I entertain such ideas and waste time on them?

I am not saying you should, but sometimes I wonder why atheists are on a religious forum if they have no interest in God or religion.

That won’t mean the other religions are all false, because they share some common beliefs, but there is only one religion that has the latest truth from God. That is my belief but if you want to be illogical you can investigate an older religion like Christianity that is no longer pertinent to the new age we live in. Your choice.

So, you just rule that I am being "illogical" if I choose to investigate any other religion then the one YOU happen to adhere to?

No, I did not say that, pick your poison.

If that is all you did was look at a rainbow and then you believed in leprechauns then you would be committing the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

I'm just going by your own words. You ended your sentence with "...and believed it was proof". That's a dead give-away of your flawed methodology.

Looking at things and "believing them to be proof of X" to end up with believing it is proof of X is again such a meaningless thing. I can look at soccer and "believe it to be proof of leprechauns" and then be convinced that I have proof of leprechauns.

Surely you see the flaw in this "methodology"?

That was just the way I wrote the post because I was as always in a hurry.... I did not *just believe* like someone who goes shopping for a new pair of shoes. I did come to believe quicker than most Baha’is do though because I had no confirmation bias; since I had no religion growing up I was a blank slate open to seeing the Truth.

Words in posts can be misleading and misconstrued. I am not suggesting you just look at something and believe in it.

Cool. But that is exactly what you said though.

As I said, words in posts can be misconstrued and often are. That’s why we have more posts.

One should do a thorough investigation of any religion before they believe it. If after their thorough investigation they cannot believe based upon reason and rationality, then they should discard it.

Sorry, my time is far too valuable to do "thorough" investigations of all the things people merely believe. I have no reason at all to invest time in researching any particular religion. It's mission impossible also, as there are SO MANY religious belief systems out there that "thoroughly" investigating them all would take multiple lifetimes.

I was not suggesting you investigate all of them. I did not look at all the houses in town before I decided which one to purchase and I still have all three houses I purchased.

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand that, and I was being hyperbolic to prove a point, because... well... let's just go to the record, shall we? And then we'll turn it around and make it seem like I am making some of the same sorts of comments, with the same tone, about theists and we'll see how they strike you.

I fully understand...
I have been on the other side of the fence for years.

 

[Trailblazer]

The religion is not the evidence.
Baha'u'llah is the evidence -- His Person, His Revelation, and His Writings.

That's like saying that "the religion christianity is not evidence, jesus is the evidence" or "islam is not evidence, mohammed is the evidence".

That is correct. Baha'u'llah, Jesus, and Muhammad were Manifestations of God.
The evidence that God exists is and ever has been the *Person* of the Manifestation.
The Unseen God can never reveal His Essence to men.
The only way God can be known is through His Manifestation.

“Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

It's inherently part of the religion.

So what you offer is not evidence. It is instead, indeed religion.

No, the Manifestation of God reveals the religion and later humans establish the religion. Here is an accurate definition of the nature of religion. That passage says a lot so let me know if you have any questions:

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

 

[Trailblazer]

But it was directed to me. Therefore the atheist in your "atheists require" was me. If that was not your intention, you should not have put it in a response to me.

Whenever I say "atheists" I mean atheists in general, atheists I have known.
If it was meant to apply to you I would have used the word "you."
Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Bahá'í view of God is essentially monotheistic. God is the imperishable, uncreated being who is the source of all existence.

So, your god has always existed.

Yes.

He is described as "a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty

How can an unknowable, inaccessible god be a personal god? That's self-contradictory.

I agree that is kind of tricky. Christians have found a way around it by making Jesus into God, but Baha’is cannot do that with Baha’u’llah. So we are supposed to be able to relate to God on a personal level through Baha’u’llah, by reading and meditating upon what He wrote and saying prayers.

Though transcendent and inaccessible directly, his image is reflected in his creation.

That's so vague as to be meaningless.

It means exactly what those words say.

The purpose of creation is for the created to have the capacity to know and love its creator

Aren't you the person who has been arguing that it is impossible for man to know god's mind? Now, when it's convenient for you, you flip and pretend to know why god created.

All we can know about God are His Attributes which are revealed by and reflected in the Manifestations of God. They are like mirror images of God so if we see them we have seen God. That is why Jesus said “Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father.”

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.

The only "evidence" for that is the self-serving writings of an ex-Muslim. That's as unconvincing as the stories of Adam & Eve and Noah and Golden tablets and Moroni.

In point of fact, the only "evidence" for the god you are attempting to describe is the self-serving writings of an ex-Muslim combined with your interpretations and expansions.

Oh for crying out loud. Excuse me while I stop laughing. The very last thing Baha’u’llah was was self-serving. What do you think He got for Himself besides imprisonment, exile and banishment for 40 years as well as many attempts on His life?

I know we covered this before but apparently you need a reminder. Of course, everything He says in these passages can be verified by what He did on His mission:

“Who can ever believe that this Servant of God hath at any time cherished in His heart a desire for any earthly honor or benefit? The Cause associated with His Name is far above the transitory things of this world. Behold Him, an exile, a victim of tyranny, in this Most Great Prison. His enemies have assailed Him on every side, and will continue to do so till the end of His life. Whatever, therefore, He saith unto you is wholly for the sake of God, that haply the peoples of the earth may cleanse their hearts from the stain of evil desire, may rend its veil asunder, and attain unto the knowledge of the one true God—the most exalted station to which any man can aspire. Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 85

“Incline your ears to the counsels which this Servant giveth you for the sake of God. He, verily, asketh no recompense from you and is resigned to what God hath ordained for Him, and is entirely submissive to God’s Will.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 127

“What! Believe ye in your hearts that ye possess the power to extinguish the radiance of the Sun, or to eclipse its splendor? Nay, by My life! Ye will never and can never achieve your purpose, though ye summon to your aid all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth. Walk ye in the fear of God, and render not your works vain. Incline your ears to His words, and be not of them that are shut out as by a veil from Him. Say: God is My witness! I have wished nothing whatever for Myself. What I have wished is the victory of God and the triumph of His Cause. He is Himself a sufficient witness between you and Me. Were ye to cleanse your eyes, ye would readily perceive how My deeds testify to the truth of My words, how My words are a guide to My deeds.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 256-257

Do you think that David Koresh did anything for the sake of God?
As Jesus said, "you shall know them by their fruits."

David Koresh also believed he was a messenger of god. You accept the self-serving writings of ex-Muslim Ballulah but reject the writings of Koresh. You cannot present a rational argument for preferring one over the other.

Oh please. All you have to do is look at their character and their lives and their writings to see the difference. I cannot even believe you are saying this.

In terms of disproving your god, well, there isn't very much there to disprove. One man wrote about him and for some reason, you want to believe he is more real than Atlas or Viracocha or Mixcoatl.

Not one man. Before Baha’u’llah came there was Muhammad and Jesus and Moses and others. They did not write their own scriptures but they were Manifestations of God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You were talking about atheism. I dont believe anything you say about religion, or theism.

In my last post I was talking about John 3:16 and Jewish response, which is that Jews will never accept anyone as "the only begotten son of God." It seems to me that your above post is an attempt to avoid dealing with what I said.

 

[Desert Snake]

In my last post I was talking about John 3:16 and Jewish response, which is that Jews will never accept anyone as "the only begotten son of God." It seems to me that your above post is an attempt to avoid dealing with what I said.

My theology doesn't have that idea, so it's a false equivalent to 'atheism'.

The English is interpreted in the way of a traditional belief, the english Bible just happens to use wording like that.

My belief is one Main God, with more than one form.

•••

 

[dfnj]

I understand that, and I was being hyperbolic to prove a point, because... well... let's just go to the record, shall we? And then we'll turn it around and make it seem like I am making some of the same sorts of comments, with the same tone, about theists and we'll see how they strike you.

Here's what @dfnj said:
So he starts out talking specifically about atheists, right?
And this is a sidenote about theists, which he juxtaposes NOT with atheists... but with nihilism. Isn't that a bit odd? So far, if he's not talking about atheists, then he's just going ALL OVER THE PLACE.
Another thing he's juxtaposing with theism - and yet another departure from the apparent topic of the paragraph (aka atheists). Again - if he isn't hinting at atheists being "philosophical materialists" then what the heck is he doing? And even then - why reference some subset of atheists who are philosophical materialists when talking to me, who he doesn't know my personal philosophy in-depth? Who is this in reference to? Does it apply to me? He certainly seems to think it was worth mentioning TO ME. Hmmmmm...
Again, he started off talking about atheists... and now we're on to "people who lack imagination." Do you see why I am confused? This paragraph is either pinning all these things on the general category "atheist" or it is just wandering ALL OVER THE DAMN PLACE for apparently no reason. Do you understand?

And now, as promised, the same sort of paragraph as @dfnj's, but about theists:


Boom. Like turnabout much?

Hate much?

 

[dfnj]

I do not see the atheists on this forum pretending to know about God but there is an atheist on my forum who thinks he knows what god would and should do if god existed... It is really funny because it is so ridiculous that anyone would think they could know what God would do or dictate what God should do.

Every religious text I've read defines God has being transcendent as well as being imminent. For an atheist to accept the existence of God, there is a presupposition God MUST be a certain way. And that way is like an "object" with boundaries. So for an atheist, they have a preexisting definition of God most theists do not use. Yet, the very essence of atheism is supposedly the simple idea of not having any belief in God or gods. What I have found is many atheists who are supposed to not having any belief in God have very STRONG opinions on what experiencing God in reality as evidence would be like.

 

[Trailblazer]

Every religious text I've read defines God has being transcendent as well as being imminent. For an atheist to accept the existence of God, there is a presupposition God MUST be a certain way. And that way is like an "object" with boundaries. So for an atheist, they have a preexisting definition of God most theists do not use. Yet, the very essence of atheism is supposedly the simple idea of not having any belief in God or gods. What I have found is many atheists who are supposed to not having any belief in God have very STRONG opinions on what experiencing God in reality as evidence would be like.

I have experienced atheists like that, the ones I know seem to want objective proof of God as if He was a material being, an object, but most do not have any conception of what God would be like if god existed.

 

[JJ50]

I have experienced atheists like that, the ones I know seem to want objective proof of God as if He was a material being, an object, but most do not have any conception of what God would be like if god existed.

Neither do you. The image of a god you have constructed has no evidence to support it.