"No evidence of God" = Is a bad argument against God

[Bathos Logos]

Good God Bathos. This is a principle. The principle is a philosophical argument.

What I am referring to, ultimately, is not "an argument". Not in the slightest. I am referring to the relationship itself. The truth of that relationship. Again... it exists regardless whether or not an argument is made for it. The next capable mind will find the same thing with regard to the limits of the measurements. Therefore, in the space between capable minds being present, it must be admitted that it is still in existence. No triangle arising even during that time could break form from the requisite relationships being argued for here. Note, THIS, right now, is the philosophical argument - about a thing that exists, regardless whether anyone is arguing.

No.

Then what does it require? Because there is literally no definition of "philosophy" I can find that doesn't include cognition. Please peruse the following (red emphasis mine):

1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a particular system of thought based on such study or investigation.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting the
5. an attitude of rationality, patience, composure, and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances

The last I left in, but it is basically inapplicable.

 

[firedragon]

What I am referring to, ultimately, is not "an argument". Not in the slightest. I am referring to the relationship itself. The truth of that relationship. Again... it exists regardless whether or not an argument is made for it. The next capable mind will find the same thing with regard to the limits of the measurements. Therefore, in the space between capable minds being present, it must be admitted that it is still in existence. No triangle arising even during that time could break form from the requisite relationships being argued for here. Note, THIS, right now, is the philosophical argument - about a thing that exists, regardless whether anyone is arguing.

Then what does it require? Because there is literally no definition of "philosophy" I can find that doesn't include cognition. Please peruse the following (red emphasis mine):

1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a particular system of thought based on such study or investigation.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting the
5. an attitude of rationality, patience, composure, and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances

The last I left in, but it is basically inapplicable.

I like the fact that you are honest.

Nevertheless, to understand philosophy don't simply go to a dictionary. Go to a good source.

This particular discussion with you is gonna go on a tangent Bathos. I understand what you say.

Cheers.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nope, but He looks to favour some of the things we do, and I do not understand why, since you would agree they are all evil.

Let's test it: is He OK with abortion today in the same way He was with slavery back then?

Ciao

- viole

He wasn't ok with either. Jesus preached freedom and life. He healed people. But he didn't advocate breaking the laws of a society where people were servants because of indebtedness. Instead he told us the one who wants to be great must become everyone's servant.

 

[Wildswanderer]

IOW, "I think we are worthless, but I place great value on the invisible, magical creatures I think inhabit our bodies."

Not even close to what I said.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not here asking for proof. All I need to see is compelling evidence. Good evidence. Something that amounts to more than words from someone else.

For example, if I wanted to provide evidence for gravity, do you think I would rely on my ability to just tell you about it? No. I could easily rely on your own experiences with the subject matter. Drop something in front of you and we could both watch it fall. I could even point you to the equations that work to describe the acceleration that an object experiences on Earth, and predict to an extremely accurate degree how fast an object would be going when it hit the ground, based on how high up it was dropped from. And then further, we could examine other bodies of mass, and see if our general equations for gravitational pull between any two bodies of mass holds to accurately predict the behavior of, for example, a moon that is orbiting another planet.

Evidence for a religion (and God) can never be the same as evidence for things of a scientific nature, for obvious logical reasons. Anything in the material world can be observed and studied and potentially proven as a fact, but God does not exist in the material world so God can never be observed or studied or proven as a fact. The only connection between God and this world are the Messengers. They are the intermediaries between God and man. I understand what atheists think of the idea of Messengers but that is what my belief in God is based upon.

These are the types of "good evidence" I am talking about. I don't need "proof" - I need good evidence before I will even think about "believing". I can think of literally no other reason to believe otherwise.

I respect your position of withholding belief. Whatever evidence there is has to be sufficient for you, and what is sufficient to me and other believers is not going to be sufficient for you, unless you came to think about evidence differently.

And even when you mentioned that we have "the person" of Baha'u'llah, all you point to is what he did in his life (which, let's be honest, says nothing about whether or not God exists. No more than what Jeffery Dahmer did in his life indicates that Satan exists), and then "the scriptures that He wrote" - which is, again, words. Any number of people could do any number of things in their lives, and none of it would be evidence that God exists, unless something they did could somehow be tied directly to the existence of God.

That is correct. What Baha'u'llah did in His life says nothing about whether or not God exists because it can never be 'proven' to be tied directly to the existence of God, even if it is. That is why it is a faith-based belief. Those of us who have faith can see the divine qualities reflected in Baha'u'llah. Of course that is a subjective call, it can never be proven as an objective fact.

I am pretty sure that nothing that Baha'u'llah did would qualify as such (which you have pretty much already admitted), but you will have to correct me if I am wrong. The main point being that people doing things in life and God's existence are two completely different things. I can think of not even one single way that an activity that a human being is capable of doing during their lives on Earth would directly indicate that God exists. I can't think of even one thing.

I do not disagree with that and it not only applies to Messengers. There is nothing on Earth that would directly indicate that God exists. However, that does not mean that God does not exist. I believe it means that God does not want to make it easy for people to 'know' that He exists.

That goes back to the OP, which I agree with:

This life is a test from God. This life is like a school. That is the reason God is hiding. Because if God showed himself to all humans then this life would not have been a test anymore.

Even if someone could heal people with their hands or something, and claimed it was "God" that was healing those people through them, that wouldn't be enough. It shouldn't be enough. That still relies on JUST WORDS. Do you understand? The word of that person saying it is a force of God. I can't know it is from God - there would need to be a demonstration of that - and I can't just take someone's word for it. That isn't "good evidence", as we have already discussed.

What would be enough for you? What would constitute "good evidence?"
That is what I asked in that thread I started last October:

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I was not mocking you or anything you said, it was just how 'I was feeling' at the time, and it was probably inappropriate since you could not have known that.

To be clearer, there are a lot of Bible verses I like and I do quote them at times, even though I have 'issues' with the Bible, more so the Old Testament than the New Testament.

Thank you for your explanation, Trailblazer. And I apologize to you for taking an issue with what you said. No harm done. Peace.

I'm editing my post and retracting what I said to you because you explained your motives to me. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

[Tinker Grey]

How about the idea (not definition) that the inner angles of a triangle all sum to the value that matches half the representative "angle" measured in a full circle (what we call 360 degrees or 2*PI)? Again, no definition necessary there, and that is an objective fact that no triangle conceived of can break.

Well, in Euclidean geometry at least.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not even close to what I said.

I think it's a fair paraphrase.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I think human life has extreme value because we are spiritual beings with eternal souls. If we were just beasts, it would have little value.

What if we were "spiritual beings" and yet, had a finite existence (One life, say.). Would you think human life has value then?

And what is it about being "spiritual" that imbues human life with value? Are these "spiritual" things something atheists typically value as well? Or do only believers value these things?

 

[Bird123]

This life is a test from God. This life is like a school. That is the reason God is hiding. Because if God showed himself to all humans then this life would not have been a test anymore.

"No evidence of God" is because of this a bad argument against God.

I believe in God without evidence because God is hiding on purpose.

This is my opinion.

Any thoughts?

Life isn't a test from God. On the other hand, you are right. Life is a school. Life is the education of God's children. You are also right that God is never going to intimidate or coerce those choices. Each will choose what each wants to learn through their free choices.

I see you believe in God without evidence. The evidence surrounds us all. Though God might not contact you directly, God is hiding nothing. In this time-based causal universe, God's actions can be seen. It's a direction by which one can really understand God.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Wildswanderer]

What if we were "spiritual beings" and yet, had a finite existence (One life, say.). Would you think human life has value then?

And what is it about being "spiritual" that imbues human life with value? Are these "spiritual" things something atheists typically value as well? Or do only believers value these things?

Yes .. the trouble with your second question is: I cannot tell you what atheists actually value, because I'm not one of them.
But their lives still have value because they are not mere animals. And it seems that most of us recognize this intuitively... We have no trouble swatting a bee or setting a mouse trap, but we would have extreme stress over killing a human even if it was necessary.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Yes .. the trouble with your second question is: I cannot tell you what atheists actually value, because I'm not one of them.
But their lives still have value because they are not mere animals. And it seems that most of us recognize this intuitively... We have no trouble swatting a bee or setting a mouse trap, but we would have extreme stress over killing a human even if it was necessary.

What people stress over killing is largely dependent upon their particular values. Consider certain marginalized groups through history. Their lives were valued less for this or that reason. When you really want certain people exterminated, you can deem it "necessary." It isn't really hard to convince people that outcasts and ethnic groups have "bee" status.

I'm an atheist, and I value human life for all sorts of reasons. I also think that people possess a value that transcends my own personal interests. Some guy at work that I don't like very much... I can still say he has value. He has interests... joys and pains... things like that. Even though I don't much like this hypothetical person, I can still admit that his life and his happiness are good things for him.

In my mind, this is the same calculation that theists make. You like to say things like "people are spiritual beings" and I like to say things like "people are just trying to live their lives like I am. Their lives are filled with joy and sorrow and are special."

But in the end, maybe we mean the same thing.

 

[rational experiences]

Once again, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Given that no one responds to your posts, I think the only one here who understands what you are trying to say is you.

Men claim they want the eternal for machines.

Humans as direct descendants from the eternal didn't arrive out of a machine.

The memory said when the sun attacked earth heavens immaculate owning no space ...as gas existed by taking in space......pushed down and sideways by extreme pressure cold hot.

Expansion pushed onto the eternal which was separated from its lost burning body by space. Pressure pushes into it. The eternals body itself moved.

So pressure back as earths atmosphere kept changing forced spirit out into the earth's heavens. Direct from spirit. From the real eternal.

Our argument men with machines own history is from burning consuming earth mass. Humans trying to tell us we came out of hell and are the same history as machines.

Versus a spirit story where we came from.

Spiritual human versus scientist once named satanist. Changed your name to scientist.

So mothers human memory said two humans stand on earth. One the man might have victimised himself by science. My mother was always his real first victim.

Today you use father's first natural memories natural human to not claim your idiotic science machine behaviours of Satanism are real.

By Stephen Hawking living a man scientists proof said he's trying to burn you all to death. Made aware via a natural human conscious experience.

The same theme Jesus. Stated only after men rebuilt science did human life get reattacked as earths heavens isn't burning consuming mass history yet the machine was.

Reality his machine history came from burning consuming hell mass we didn't. Men say it belongs to eternals hell knowing believing once it was eternals first form.

The alien is destroyed humans earth images as even earth holds its own image as a planet.

If a state a long time ago is why held image exists and you burn up the image of earth as a man you get an alien image.

Said father to his human son by human image voice shared memories of everyone you ever hurt.

Scientists are a liar. Any type of body owns it's own image. Humans weren't ever aliens.

The human reason why evil images emerged had already been science taught as a human scientists own cause. It's a destroyed machine effect...by its human man designer.

And when humans use all human biological mind processes to build manifest a machine to every reaction performed. It's how you come about causing a human mind possession as life is destroyed.

Known taught and currently being used by humans who studied it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It isn't really hard to convince people that outcasts and ethnic groups have "bee" status.

I don't find this to be true of 99 percent of the population of this country. Some people talk a lot of smack but when it comes down to it they don't want others dead.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I don't find this to be true of 99 percent of the population of this country. Some people talk a lot of smack but when it comes down to it they don't want others dead.

So lets go back to your original statement: "I think human life has extreme value because we are spiritual beings with eternal souls. If we were just beasts, it would have little value."

You are speaking of an absolute value. It isn't really subject to the opinions of people in "this country."

Now I realize where you are coming from. In response to what I said about your original statement you made some remarks about what people recognize intuitively about the inherent value of human life. Fine.

But what people "intuitively" recognize as valuable is often affected by cultural attitudes of the times (that was the point in my first response).

I grew up in a small town in Appalachia. A town I've returned to as a fully grown adult. Most of my friends are conservative Christians. Now... the crap that I heard conservatives say about blacks when I was younger is MUCH worse than the stuff I hear now. Conservatives are MUCH more open-minded than they used to be. We used to have a "Sundown" sign hanging in our train station when I was young. (Basically, it instructed black people who'd arrived on the train that they needed to leave by sundown.") Of course, this sign was well past its expiration date, even when I was young. But you'd be surprised how many people had fond opinions about it, even if they didn't fully endorse what it stood for. Luckily, some people spoke up and the sign was eventually removed. But my point isn't really about the sign.

My point is that people's values change over time. They are subject to societal and temporal conditions. "Human life has an inherent value" is a statement I think is true. But it isn't something I think "changes with the times." Also, I don't think it changes according to cultural conditions. If it is indeed true, then I'm with you (at least in part)... it needs to be absolutely true.

But invoking general opinions on the matter (especially opinions in "this country") doesn't express an absolute fact. General opinions change. Many of them are ultimately caused by societal factors.

I don't believe that some superior cosmic being needs to make my belief in the value of human life true by etching it onto a stone tablet. It's true regardless. There are plenty of things that atheists take to be absolutely true, and have no need of a divine decree to convince them (that the Earth revolves around the sun, for instance). I'm arguing, along with others, that human life's inherent value is one of them. We can "figure out" that human life has value without there being immaterial souls, ectoplasm, angels, or any of that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mate. YOU have not read Kant. Yet you are telling others to read Kant. Only to show you that you are looking at some web page on the internet that mentions Kant, you are dropping words and names. That is why you cannot understand a single I said about Kant himself.

This is irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant. It is because you have not understood it you keep dropping words and names. The noumenal lies behind the mentally imposed forms of time, space, and causation, and is therefore unknowable. That is irrelevant to non-contradiction and an ontology of a triangle.

Actually this is laughable. I am out.

Fair enough.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, "philosophy", even as you have defined it, does not need to be involved in the principle that exists limiting the possibilities of these measurements. It simply does not. Otherwise you would have to state that the principle or relationship itself it somehow no longer applicable or true when capable minds are not there to take the measurements. When the truth is, the next capable mind would most definitely find the exact same principle/relationship in play. Thus fitting the very definition of "objective".

Also, I notice you dodged my point about gravity. Care to weigh-in on that one?

We will keep it simple. There is one and only one definition of objective in regards to this:
Definition of OBJECTIVE
So which one it is?

 

[Tiberius]

Men claim they want the eternal for machines.

Humans as direct descendants from the eternal didn't arrive out of a machine.

The memory said when the sun attacked earth heavens immaculate owning no space ...as gas existed by taking in space......pushed down and sideways by extreme pressure cold hot.

Expansion pushed onto the eternal which was separated from its lost burning body by space. Pressure pushes into it. The eternals body itself moved.

So pressure back as earths atmosphere kept changing forced spirit out into the earth's heavens. Direct from spirit. From the real eternal.

Our argument men with machines own history is from burning consuming earth mass. Humans trying to tell us we came out of hell and are the same history as machines.

Versus a spirit story where we came from.

Spiritual human versus scientist once named satanist. Changed your name to scientist.

So mothers human memory said two humans stand on earth. One the man might have victimised himself by science. My mother was always his real first victim.

Today you use father's first natural memories natural human to not claim your idiotic science machine behaviours of Satanism are real.

By Stephen Hawking living a man scientists proof said he's trying to burn you all to death. Made aware via a natural human conscious experience.

The same theme Jesus. Stated only after men rebuilt science did human life get reattacked as earths heavens isn't burning consuming mass history yet the machine was.

Reality his machine history came from burning consuming hell mass we didn't. Men say it belongs to eternals hell knowing believing once it was eternals first form.

The alien is destroyed humans earth images as even earth holds its own image as a planet.

If a state a long time ago is why held image exists and you burn up the image of earth as a man you get an alien image.

Said father to his human son by human image voice shared memories of everyone you ever hurt.

Scientists are a liar. Any type of body owns it's own image. Humans weren't ever aliens.

The human reason why evil images emerged had already been science taught as a human scientists own cause. It's a destroyed machine effect...by its human man designer.

And when humans use all human biological mind processes to build manifest a machine to every reaction performed. It's how you come about causing a human mind possession as life is destroyed.

Known taught and currently being used by humans who studied it.

Still got no idea what you're trying to say.

You really must work at putting your thoughts into some kind of coherent manner. I know you can do it, I've seen you do it before.

 

[Tiberius]

You contradict yourself in this post.

Sorry, who is it that you are referring to?

 

[Wildswanderer]

We can "figure out" that human life has value without there being immaterial souls, ectoplasm, angels, or any of that.

You might know it's true but in the atheist world there's no real reason it should be...there we are just smart animals. I personally have never had a problem killing and eating animals. Yet you want to argue for the inherent value of humans as opposed to cows or sheep. Why? It has to be something inborn.