Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?

[Trailblazer]

There's no false equivalence here.

For your belief in god you rely on believing anecdotes and claims of people ("messengers").
He's just asking you if that type of evidence would be sufficient for you to convict someone in a trial if a "guilty" charge would result in execution.

Sounds like you are dodging. Seems obvious why.

This is a classic case of false equivalence, comparing apples and oranges. To compare the type of evidence needed for a court case to the type of evidence needed for to know that God exists is completely illogical because you are comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.

Evidence for God can never be the same kind of evidence needed at a murder trial.
Yes, the evidence for God's existence is Messengers of God, but that evidence is not anecdotal or based upon their claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ow?

How do you know that?

I don't know it, I only believe I know it, as I explained in a post above.

 

[Trailblazer]

These are the kind of questions that niggle at me and beg for resolution. Why are there different beliefs and why have those beliefs changed over time?

There is a logical answer to that question.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

You made this unequivocal assertion:

Religion is the evidence for God.

Which just struck me as completely incongruous with what we know. Primarily that religion has been around a lot longer than the idea of "God" has. The one constant through this evolution of religious belief are human beings themselves. This is why I suggest to you that religions are evidence of, and speak to the nature of this constant, human beings themselves.

The "idea of God" is not God. God is eternal so God has always existed. God has sent Messengers/Prophets ever since humans have existed, long before the art of writing was invented and humans had some form of religion. In that sense you are correct in saying that religions are evidence of humans, since humans created those religions. However, religions are also evidence for God since religions are based upon revelations from God through Messengers of God.

“And now regarding thy question, “How is it that no records are to be found concerning the Prophets that have preceded Adam, the Father of Mankind, or of the kings that lived in the days of those Prophets?” Know thou that the absence of any reference to them is no proof that they did not actually exist. That no records concerning them are now available, should be attributed to their extreme remoteness, as well as to the vast changes which the earth hath undergone since their time.

Moreover such forms and modes of writing as are now current amongst men were unknown to the generations that were before Adam. There was even a time when men were wholly ignorant of the art of writing, and had adopted a system entirely different from the one which they now use. For a proper exposition of this an elaborate explanation would be required.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 172-173

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You believe you know god does not exist, just as I believe I know that leprechauns do not exist.
Unless we can prove that these entities do not exist we do not know they don't exist.

You said, "I know that leprechauns do not exist." Now you say that you believe you know that, which is redundant (anything you think you know is one of your beliefs, whether that belief has been empirically justified or is held by faith), and also that you don't really know it. At this point, I can't paraphrase what you believe anymore. Of course, what you call knowledge (knowing) might be knowledge by my reckoning, and what you call reason isn't what I call reason.

The difference between God and leprechauns is that we know leprechauns are made up entities tat are based upon folklore and there is no evidence that they exist in reality, but there is evidence that God exists in reality.

I don't see a difference between gods and leprechauns. You say you know that leprechauns are made up entities after that confusing bit above about what that means to you, and you've well stated the symmetry between god beliefs and leprechaun beliefs with, "You believe you know god does not exist, just as I believe I know that leprechauns do not exist."

There is no evidence offered for gods that isn't also evidence for a godless universe, whether that be scripture, classic medieval arguments, or nature. Nor is the evidence for gods better than the evidence for leprechauns. Gods are also folklore characters.

Evidence for God can never be the same kind of evidence needed at a murder trial.

You probably mean the kind of evidence that leads to a just murder conviction, but many-a-trial has led to a verdict for lack of satisfactory evidence to convict (not guilty) or to defend against the evidence for conviction (guilty). Trump's attorneys will be presenting the kind of evidence believers offer for their gods, and the juries will likely convict him - not have a separate standard for him alone. His attorneys can complain that comparing Trump to other defendants is like comparing apples to oranges, and that they should not be expected to present the same kind of evidence as other litigants, but that's special pleading (unjustified double standard) and will be rejected as it is when you make the same claim. You want a separate standard for evaluating claims of this god's existence, but your reasons don't justify the double standard.

 

[Trailblazer]

BECAUSE IT'S NOT VALID EVIDENCE!! .
You can't just declare whatever resonates with you "evidence." If it's not factually true, if it's subjective, if it's illogically concluded -- It's not evidence!

I am not going down this road again.
What is not valid evidence to you is valid evidence to me and other people. In short, YOU do not determine what valid evidence IS and neither do I.
You can only say what seems valid to YOU. What is valid evidence is subjective.

What does considered as valid mean?

based on truth or reason; able to be accepted: a valid argument/criticism/reason.
My way of thinking might be different from yours, but it's equally valid. Compare. Nov 29, 2023

VALID | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary​

I do not declare whatever resonates with me as "evidence." The person of Baha'u'llah and the history of the Baha'i Faith is factually true, if it's not subjective. How we interpret the person and the history is subjective, there is no way around that since what we believe is based upon our personal opinions.

There is not separate logic for different persons. A premise is either true or not; a conclusion is either valid or not.

As I have said dozens of time, the existence of God, and thus Messengers of God, is not SUBJECT being proven true with a formal logical argument.

There is such a thing as informal logic, which is what makes sense, and what makes logical sense to me does not make logical sense to you.

So what is the objective, empirical evidence for this God and this particular doctrine?

There is no objective, empirical evidence for the entity we refer to as God because that entity can never be SEEN since it is spirit.
Why is this so difficult for atheists to understand?

The objective, empirical evidence for the actual reality claimed: God, God's nature, God's plans, God's doctrine and desires, God's commandments, God's relation to us is contained in the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

I challenge this. Show us your work.
This sounds like an ecstatic experience; an emotional commitment, more than reason or logic.

Didn't Baha'u'llah teach that if there were a conflict between science and religion, to go with the science? This sounds like he valued reason over emotion.

I knew that the Baha'i Faith was true, simply based upon logic and reason. I cannot show you that since it was MY logic and reason, not yours.

I value reason over emotion and I have no emotional attachment to God or the Baha'i Faith.

If Baha'i were "reasonable and logical", why is it not universally accepted, like relativity or germ theory?

Because what is reasonable and logical to some people is not reasonable and logical to other people.

Relativity and germ theory was proven true so it is universally accepted as true. Religion cannot be proven true, it can only be believed. There are reasons why any given religion is believed by some people and not others.

Our atheism is based on the flawed epistemic methodology of theism.

What you 'believe' is the flawed epistemic methodology of theism..

So what is this "evidence all around you": the vast universe? the wondrous intricacy of the natural world? These are all scientifically explainable as the natural, blind expression of the laws and constants of the universe. No magic or intention needed.

It is scientifically explainable as ONLY natural, so you are free to choose that explanation if you want to.

 

[Trailblazer]

You seem to have a personal definition of "rational."

Look at the pot calling the kettle black!

The evidence, then, presupposes the God in question. How is this rational?

The evidence does not presuppose the God in question, it indicates that the God in question exists.

But you have not, or have, at least, made rational errors. We try to point this out, but it seems to go right over your head.

Atheists make so many logical errors it makes my head spin. That is the main reason they will never believe in God. It is impossible to get past all the logical fallacies that atheists commit. I cannot reason with people who are illogical.

The messengers presuppose your conclusion of God. It's circular.

The Messengers do not presuppose my belief in God. They support my belief in God
Call that circular if you want to but that does not change the fact that if the Messengers were sent by God, then God exists.
Whether you choose to believe that or not is your own choice.

"Makes sense to me" Is not a rational principle. A thing is not right because it seems right.

"Makes sense to me" Is not a rational principle. I never said it was.
What flies right over your head is that the converse also applies. What makes no sense to you is also not a rational principle.

????? And you think you're being rational? Belief is not evidence of the thing believed.
You acknowledge that there is insufficient evidence to believe your God-claim, then object to our disbelief. How is this reasonable?

I said: You want some kind of evidence that does not exist. Religion is the evidence for God.
I did not say: Belief is evidence of the thing believed.

Of course belief is not evidence of the thing believed!

A circular non-sequitur? Creative.
All your arguments presuppose God. You need to establish the existence of God before you invent Manifestations as evidence.

NONE of my arguments presuppose the existence of God.
Nobody can ever ESTABLISH the existence of God.

I did not invent Manifestations as evidence. God sent them as evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because they do not "seem reasonable" -- to you?

Correct, just as the existence of God does not "seem reasonable" -- to you.

 

[Nimos]

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence, the purposes of these concepts are entirely different. One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form. I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

I think it is a fair analogy, not all the ones you mentioned, have personally never heard any atheist compare God to Big Foot or Nessie.

But I think the keyword here is "Supernatural".

And any attribute you can assign to a God you could potentially assign to any supernatural being. Who says that a being looking like a unicorn couldn't have the same attributes as God, when no verifiable evidence for it can be demonstrated? This allows for a unicorn to have any capabilities you would like and neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate whether it is true or not.

The only counter-argument to it is really to draw on what is written about unicorns, but given the circumstances, these things could simply be wiped away as being incorrect and wouldn't make the claim of a unicorn ruling things more or less likely.

So the problem is with "Supernatural", because it allows for anything being possible without demonstration.

If you turn the argument around, and have someone claiming this and that about God, these things come from the religious text, so why should they be more valid than those texts about a unicorn?

Even in your case saying you have experienced God. It is not a very convincing argument for anyone. Because how do you know it is God and not a unicorn in another form? and even if you don't accept that, how do you know that it is not a trick of the mind? or that it is not some other God playing tricks on you? the options are vast here and without verification, it is simply not a very strong argument.

So I think a valid question you could ask yourself is how does a supernatural God differ from a supernatural unicorn? What is God capable of that the unicorn isn't?

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not rational in any way. What messengers claim is not factual, and facts are what is required to be rational. I understand believers what their beliefs to be true, but they lack facts.

What Messengers claim is a revelation from God.

There are no Facts about God and there never will be, because Facts require proof, and these never was and never will be any proof that God exists...
As such it logically follows that there is no proof that God ever sent any Messenger.
That Messengers of God exist is a belief, not a Fact.

Then what makes you special and can reason better and more accurately than all other critical thinkers in the world?

I never said I was special or that I can reason better and more accurately than all other critical thinkers in the world.
I reason differently, that's all.

Something is wrong in your beliefs as you claim to be rational but your beliefs are of a theist. As we see no theist can show their beliefs are rational and treue either. So what are all the atheists in the world getting wrong that you somehow get right?

I do not claim to be rational but I believe I am rational, just as you believe you are rational. Whether or not a person is rational or not is a matter of personal opinion.

As atheists see it no theist can show their beliefs are rational.
As believers see it no atheist can show our beliefs are irrational.

Whether or not a belief is rational or not is a matter of personal opinion.

No, no theist can prove that their beliefs are true, just as no atheist can prove that our beliefs are false, since religious beliefs are not subject to proof. They are simply a matter of personal opinion.

See, now you admit there isn't the evidence that is required, so how can you know anthing that you claim?

No, I do not admit that there isn't the evidence that is required since religion is the evidence that is required to believe in God.
You want some kind of evidence that does not exist, and you will never find it since it does not exist.

See, you admit mesengers aren't factual in what they claim. That means we can't assume they are correct.

I never said that what Messengers reveal is factual. It cannot be factual since it can never be proven to have come from God.
Of course we should not assume the Messengers are correct.

Because critical thinkers require the standard level of evidence to accept anthing they claim.

Regarding your requirement for some 'standard level of evidence', it is not logical to expect to have any evidence for God unless God provides that evidence, so if God does not provide the kind of evidence you require the logical thing is not to believe in God.

None of this impacts how we humans reason to sound conclusions. Arguably the "narrow way" is reasoning, because that is the cognitive skill that allows wisdom to work. We see the mistakes and emotional beliefs of believers who work hard to maintain their framework, especially in defense against criticism.

That is what YOU see.
What I see is see the mistakes of atheists who work hard to maintain their framework, especially in defense against criticism.

 

[Trailblazer]

Has it not occurred to you that one reason that so many religions exist with different details is because humans are gullible and want to believe in an established framework that others believe in already?

Has it not occurred to you that one reason that so many religions exist with different details is because God has sent many different Messengers who have established many different religions over the course of time?

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]

This teaching is an interaction of simpler teachings and their implications. The basic concept relates closely to Bahá'í views on God's essential unity, and the nature of prophets, termed Manifestations of God. It also ties into Bahá'í views of the purpose and nature of religion, laws, belief, culture and history. Hence revelation is seen as both progressive and continuous, and therefore never ceases.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

 

[MikeF]

There is a logical answer to that question.

Logic is a tool to derive true statements from other true statements. As such, logic has very little applicability with regards to religion.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.

This is supposition, an uncertain belief, by the use of the honest phrasing "...a core teaching ... that suggests ..."

Supposition does not a logical argument make.

The "idea of God" is not God. God is eternal so God has always existed. God has sent Messengers/Prophets ever since humans have existed, long before the art of writing was invented and humans had some form of religion. In that sense you are correct in saying that religions are evidence of humans, since humans created those religions. However, religions are also evidence for God since religions are based upon revelations from God through Messengers of God.

“And now regarding thy question, “How is it that no records are to be found concerning the Prophets that have preceded Adam, the Father of Mankind, or of the kings that lived in the days of those Prophets?” Know thou that the absence of any reference to them is no proof that they did not actually exist. That no records concerning them are now available, should be attributed to their extreme remoteness, as well as to the vast changes which the earth hath undergone since their time.

Moreover such forms and modes of writing as are now current amongst men were unknown to the generations that were before Adam. There was even a time when men were wholly ignorant of the art of writing, and had adopted a system entirely different from the one which they now use. For a proper exposition of this an elaborate explanation would be required.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 172-173

You say, "God is eternal so God has always existed." Sadly, simply saying it does not make it so. Not only does this claimed entity not exist beyond anyone's imaginings, it cannot be established that such things are even possible or plausible in this reality of ours.

If you are happy in your belief, then be content and set these discussions aside. If asked, I can only confirm the reality that these beliefs are only religious myth.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except that neither he nor I know this god, so I guess it didn't make itself known.

God has made Himself known, but everyone does not know God because they don't like the way God made Himself known.

Assuming one exists, why should I or anybody else care what the god likes? Why do you? Are you thinking that it might punish you if you don't please it?

Because whatever an All-Knowing God 'likes' is what is best for us.
We might also care because God is All-Powerful so God does whatsoever He chooses to do.
I do not think that God will punish me because I do not please Him, but I believe that God will punish evil-doers.

And how could we even know what a god wanted?

Only by reading scriptures that were revealed by Messengers of God.

All I've seen there are the words of a man speaking for an unseen god. I have no reason to pay further attention to those words.

If that is what you see then you have no reason to pay further attention to those words.

Are you saying that you were a member of a faith for decades and never read the words of its best-known prophet? Earlier, you suggested that your evidence for belief came from the messenger - his character, mission, and words. Now, it seems that what drew you into the religion was something else, but I can't tell what. Was there a Baha'i community that you socialized with that you found appealing?

Initially, what drew me to the religion were the core teachings - the oneness of humanity, the oneness of God, and the oneness of religion - in addition to the spiritual and social teachings and the message of world peace and good will to all men.

No, there was no Baha'i community that I socialized with that I found appealing.

It is not rational to conclude that that message is from a god, but remember that I don't consider rogue reason able to generate rational or well-reasoned conclusions. You have your own rules of inference, and they don't generate sound conclusions. They support fervently held beliefs.

I am not going down that road of what is rational and what is not rational since that is subjective, since it is only a matter of personal opinion.

That said, I do not think it is rational to conclude that a message is from God without a careful investigation of everything that surrounds the Messenger, but at the end of the day everyone will have to draw their own conclusions.

How? What observation or experiment rules out the possibility of their existence?

In case you missed that post, I later said that I believe I know, I don't actually know.

At the risk of offending, can you see how all of your arguments for believing in gods apply here as well. Why should leprechauns want to make themselves known to you? They have revealed themselves, but not in a way you like. They used messengers to tell their tales of pots of gold and rainbows. It's not their fault if those messengers didn't convince you:

But none of that is true so your argument fails.

Why would leprechauns want to make themselves known to us? Leprechauns have not revealed themselves.

Leprechauns have not used messengers to tell their tales of pots of gold and rainbows.
Humans wrote mythical stories about leprechauns. To be fair, humans also wrote mythical stories about gods, but that does not mean that what Baha'u'llah wrote was mythical.

But more importantly, there is no REASON to care about pots of gold and rainbows since it does not impact our lives, but there is a reason to care about what Messengers of God revealed since it greatly impacts our lives, if we believe it.

The comment was, " if that person believes in a god, they do so by faith, not reason." That's a fact.

That is not a fact at all, it is only a personal opinion that nobody believes in God by reason.
Since it is ONLY a personal opinion, I could just as easily say that you disbelieve in God not by reason, since there is no reason to disbelieve in a God that there is evidence for.

Believers believe in God based upon both reason and faith, because they have evidence but they need faith to believe since God cannot be proven to exist.

To say that God has to be believed on either reason or faith, that it cannot be both, is the either-or fallacy.
You are doing exactly what the fallacy says. You are trying to force others to accept your viewpoint as legitimate.

An either-or fallacy occurs when someone claims there are only two possible options or sides in an argument when there are actually more. This is a manipulative method that forces others to accept the speaker's viewpoint as legitimate, feasible, or ethical. Jul 23, 2023

What Is the Either-Or Fallacy? | Examples & Definition

That's incongruent. It's not reason unless it's pure reason. Admix even a seed of faith, and the belief is n longer a sound conclusion.

That is just another personal opinion you hold and it is completely illogical. The REASON it is illogical is that no matter how much evidence we have, some faith will always be necessary to believe in a God that can never be seen or located! It is so incredible that atheists cannot understand such a simple concept.

Now if you do not choose to believe in a God who can never be seen or located that is another matter.

Disagree. Justified and unjustified belief form a MECE group - mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive - meaning that every belief is one or the other but none are both or neither.

I do not care if you disagree.
It is still a logical fallacy to say that God has to be believed on either reason or faith, that it cannot be both.
That is the either-or fallacy.

Moreover, what is justified or unjustified belief is just another personal opinion.

You are committing the fallacy of special pleading. Gods are not exempt from critical analysis.

No, I am not committing that fallacy. I have done my critical analysis.

 

[Trailblazer]

Logic is a tool to derive true statements from other true statements. As such, logic has very little applicability with regards to religion.

I could not have said that better myself.
Logic cannot be used to prove that a religion is true, since religion is not subject to proof.

This is supposition, an uncertain belief, by the use of the honest phrasing "...a core teaching ... that suggests ..."

Supposition does not a logical argument make.

I am not trying to make a logical argument for progressive revelation.
Logic cannot be used to prove that a religious belief is true, since religious beliefs are not subject to logical proof.

Yes, it is a belief, and as a belief it can either be true or false. A belief is not false simply because it cannot be proven to be true.

You say, "God is eternal so God has always existed." Sadly, simply saying it does not make it so. Not only does this claimed entity not exist beyond anyone's imaginings, it cannot be established that such things are even possible or plausible in this reality of ours.

I did not say that my saying it makes it true, that would be illogical.
Conversely, if you say that no eternal God exists, sadly, simply saying it does not make it so.

You do not know that God is a claimed entity that does not exist beyond anyone's imaginings, since that cannot be established as a fact.
You can only believe that God is imaginary, just as I can only believe that God is real.

If you are happy in your belief, then be content and set these discussions aside. If asked, I can only confirm the reality that these beliefs are only religious myth.

I like logic, which is the main reason I continue with these discussions.
It is not 'the reality' that these beliefs are only religious myth, it is only your personal opinion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am not going down that road of what is rational and what is not rational since that is subjective, since it is only a matter of personal opinion.

This is the crux of the problem - you do not know or recognize that there is an objective standard for what is valid reasoning, the validity of which has been demonstrated repeatedly. Everything else called reason is fallacious. Nevertheless, you seem to think that any claim you wish to connect to any evidence by any reasoning however fallacious supports that claim, and don't seem to understand why that thinking is rejected by others. After all, if in your mind, all such rules of inference are arbitrary and subjective, yours is as good as theirs. That's why you call them all just opinions. Now THERE'S some false equivalency.

I used to understand Dunning-Kruger syndrome as people who consider their opinions informed when they're not, and see themselves as one of the big dogs whose opinions deserve respect, but I now understand it differently. It's the unawareness that there is a better way to think. It's from people who seem to think that all opinions are as subjective and unfounded as their own. Why do I think that? Because they consider all opinions equal. If the first scenario were correct, they would not feel that all opinions are equal, and theirs are among the preferred ones. But that's not what they say.

Leprechauns have not revealed themselves.

They have as much as any god has.

Leprechauns have not used messengers to tell their tales of pots of gold and rainbows.

Messengers tell of leprechauns. There are even photographs of them: Do These Photos Prove Leprechauns Are Real (And Scarier Than We Ever Imagined)? We can connect that evidence to the conclusion that leprechauns exist using the same reasoning you use to connect what you call evidence for gods to your present beliefs about them. It's evidence in support of your belief because you say it is, and if that's valid for you, it's valid for all.

God has made Himself known, but everyone does not know God because they don't like the way God made Himself known.

Just like leprechauns.

Because whatever an All-Knowing God 'likes' is what is best for us.

Why would I believe that?

I do not think that God will punish me because I do not please Him, but I believe that God will punish evil-doers.

Then once again, why should a decent person concern himself at all with the possibility that such a god exists?

Believers believe in God based upon both reason and faith, because they have evidence but they need faith to believe since God cannot be proven to exist.

You've just described an unjustified belief. The evidence you cite doesn't connect to your conclusion, so you add a little leap of faith at the end, which generates an idea as useless as any other faith-based belief.

To say that God has to be believed on either reason or faith, that it cannot be both, is the either-or fallacy.

You've already made that claim and had it rebutted. There is no fallacy here. An idea is either justified using the established principle of reasoning or it's not. There is no middle ground, just as water can be pure or impure, and once one establishes criteria for purity, a given sample of water can be tested and found to be either pure or contaminated. There's no middle ground. There are degrees of impurity, but they're all impure water. Similarly, any amount of faith in an argument invalidates the argument and makes its conclusion unsound and belief in it unjustified.

 

[Trailblazer]

You said, "I know that leprechauns do not exist." Now you say that you believe you know that, which is redundant

Yes, that is redundant. I do not believe I know that leprechauns do not exist. I do not believe that leprechauns exist.

I don't see a difference between gods and leprechauns.

That is what you don't see, but that doesn't mean there is no difference between God and leprechauns.

There is no evidence offered for gods that isn't also evidence for a godless universe, whether that be scripture, classic medieval arguments, or nature. Nor is the evidence for gods better than the evidence for leprechauns. Gods are also folklore characters.

There is nothing that you recognize as evidence for God.

You probably mean the kind of evidence that leads to a just murder conviction.

No, I mean exactly what I said.
Evidence for God can never be the same kind of evidence needed at a murder trial.

You want a separate standard for evaluating claims of this god's existence, but your reasons don't justify the double standard.

My reasons do justify a different standard for God belief than the standards used to convict a criminal in a court of law.
Can God show up in a court of law and stand on trial?

Again, the fallacy of false equivalence rears its ugly head.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".​

​

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.​

​

False equivalence - Wikipedia​

The claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because your claim that standards for God belief and standards for courts of law should be the same is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

You are comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.

The Meaning of Comparing Apples to Oranges When you're comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.​

​

Comparing Apples to Oranges - Idiom, Meaning & Origin​

 

[Trailblazer]

you seem to think that any claim you wish to connect to any evidence by any reasoning however fallacious supports that claim,

You seem to think that any claim you wish to connect to any evidence by any reasoning however fallacious supports that claim.

I am not the one committing the fallacies here, as I have clearly pointed out. Atheists are famous for fallacies. I learned all about fallacies because I kept having to look up all the fallacies that atheists commit.

and don't seem to understand why that thinking is rejected by others.

Others? You mean other atheists. Why would that matter?

Then once again, why should a decent person concern himself at all with the possibility that such a god exists?

Because a decent person would want to know if God exists.

You've just described an unjustified belief. The evidence you cite doesn't connect to your conclusion, so you add a little leap of faith at the end, which generates an idea as useless as any other faith-based belief.

Believers believe in God based upon both reason and faith, because they have evidence but they need faith to believe since God cannot be proven to exist.

I've just described a justified belief. The evidence I cite perfectly connects to my conclusions.

You've already made that claim and had it rebutted. There is no fallacy here. An idea is either justified using the established principle of reasoning or it's not.

That has not been rebutted. To say that God has to be believed on either reason or faith, that it cannot be both, is the either-or fallacy.

The established principle of reasoning? No, you mean YOUR principle of reasoning. Nothing has been established.
Your reasoning is nothing for me to be concerned about because if you could reason logically you would believe in God.

Similarly, any amount of faith in an argument invalidates the argument and makes its conclusion unsound and belief in it unjustified.

That is just another one of your biased personal opinions, nothing for me to be concerned about, since it is drop dead illogical.

 

[Quintessence]

Has it not occurred to you that one reason that so many religions exist with different details is because humans are gullible and want to believe in an established framework that others believe in already?

Has it not occurred to you that one reason so many religions exist with different details is because all religion emerges out of human experiences with the world around them and environments and conditions are different in different places and historical eras? And that this also better explains why certain globally common human experiences (e.g., experiences of Sun, Moon, and nature just in general) are the most common and widespread objects of worship?

Nah, you'd rather just crap on religion and theism. Carry on and ignore me as usual.

 

[Nimos]

Logic cannot be used to prove that a religion is true, since religion is not subject to proof.

You have to be careful here

If you believe this to be true, then you ought to look at all religions as being equally valid. (Which I know you don't ) So depending on your subjective opinion religions can be either valid or invalid, which seems rather irrational.

How do you go about concluding that ancient Greek religion is wrong?

 

[Trailblazer]

Has it not occurred to you that one reason so many religions exist with different details is because all religion emerges out of human experiences with the world around them and environments and conditions are different in different places and historical eras?

It has occurred to me since it is the core teaching of the Baha'i Faith, called Progressive Revelation.

 

[Viker]

Is that "real" like @PureX means?
Or "real" like the rest of the world means?

I think I have said enough. Men in black suits seem to be following me.