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

[ChristineM]

This is a good clue to pull out this nugget again:

“The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with the nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen it to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.”

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I love that ever increasing trilogy of books, so sad that the increased trilogy can increase no more

 

[Trailblazer]

What do you have to determine that these "Messengers" were indeed informed by or sent on a mission by God? What do you have? I would argue that you have only words yet again. And even worse here, you have only the words of one specific individual and whoever else he has convinced that his/her words are true. That's literally all you can possibly have. Unless you want to cite "feelings" you get that you suspect are also "from God" and which you might interpret are God trying to "tell you" that this Messenger is telling the truth. But even then, the only evidence you have to share with others are the words that you just admitted are a poor form of evidence.
No, I do not only have words. That would be insufficient because many men have written words and made claims they were sent by God, and they were not so that is not proof of anything.

I have the Person of the Messenger and the mission that He accomplished, and these are the most important evidence that indicates the Messenger was from God and communicated to by God. Mind you, there can never be any proof that God sent or spoke to a Messenger, since there can never be any universally accepted proof that God exists. All we can ever hope to have is evidence, and for some of us that evidence is proof.

The Person of the Messenger is His character as evidenced by who He was, what He did in His life. In the case of Baha'u'llah that includes the scriptures that He wrote, which was part of His mission.

The Messengers of God were also Manifestations of God and all of them were evidence that God exists.
God is everlastingly hidden from our eyes and can never be seen so all we have are the Messengers who are the Voice of God on earth.

“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

All of the Manifestations of God were evidence of God. How do we know that they were true Prophets and not false Prophets?

Matthew 7

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: fruit

"Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men......

In the chapters that follow, we shall endeavor to show whether Bahá’u’lláh’s claim to Prophethood stands or falls by application of these tests: whether the things that He had spoken have followed and come to pass, and whether His fruits have been good or evil; in other words, whether His prophecies are being fulfilled and His ordinances established, and whether His lifework has contributed to the education and upliftment of humanity and the betterment of morals, or the contrary."
Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 8-9

From: Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era

And then you seemed so shocked that atheists inform you that these "Messengers" you want to point to are not evidence. Again... it is hearsay, and there is no way to tie their proclamations about the knowledge they hold directly to God. Even if you want to point to some scripture and say that the coming of a particular "Messenger" was heralded in the text as a form of prophecy... this is again, just words that you want to try and use to back up more words. It isn't enough for me. And I am strongly of the opinion that it shouldn't be enough for anyone.

I am hardly shocked as I have been posting to atheists 24/7 for about nine years on various forums and they all say essentially the same things about Messengers of God.

No, there is no way to prove that the proclamations of the Messengers about the knowledge they hold came directly from God, and that is where faith comes into play, as what cannot be proven has to be believed on faith. However, it would be foolish to believe on faith alone, if there was no evidence to back up their claims.

 

[viole]

As far as I'm concerned humans are not merely animals. So our morality comes from a different source.

I hope it is not the same source into slavery and dashing kids against walls.

ciao

- viole

 

[Bathos Logos]

Mind you, there can never be any proof that God sent or spoke to a Messenger, since there can never be any universally accepted proof that God exists. All we can ever hope to have is evidence, and for some of us that evidence is proof.

The Person of the Messenger is His character as evidenced by who He was, what He did in His life. In the case of Baha'u'llah that includes the scriptures that He wrote, which was part of His mission.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

 

[firedragon]

Because truth and knowledge are to me subjective belief systems, which works in the mind, where as objective knowledge is about objective reality independent of the mind and being epistemologically fair (Rene Descartes and all the other skeptical cases) and thus objective knowledge requires faith in that you and I are ontologically real and not in the Matrix or similar cases. I do believe in that this is not an illusion, but that requires faith to a skeptic like me.

Thats absolutely irrelevant to the question I asked.

Anyway, do you think a triangle has three sides? Is that objective or subjective?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Matthew 7

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

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

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thats absolutely irrelevant to the question I asked.

Anyway, do you think a triangle has three sides? Is that objective or subjective?

It is a functional tautology. Whether it is objective and/or subjective depends on the given definitions.

 

[firedragon]

It is a functional tautology. Whether it is objective and/or subjective depends on the given definitions.

Nope. Thats also absolutely irrelevant to the question I asked.

Yet, thanks for engaging. Cheers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope. Thats also absolutely irrelevant to the question I asked.

Yet, thanks for engaging. Cheers.

Yeah, we have different methods.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I hope it is not the same source into slavery and dashing kids against walls.

ciao

- viole

Or the same source that says the Israelites massacred another nation (killing every man, woman, child, and infant) because their God ordered them to. Personally, I think that if someone wants to learn more about morality, then they shouldn't read the Bible, especially the Old Testament or the Book of Revelation. I fail to see how forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist, killing witches, brutally killing people for their land to take possession of a "promised land," and dashing infants against a rock is moral (Psalm 137:9).

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, we have different methods.

Thats not a "method".

Anyway, you said

Because truth and knowledge are to me subjective belief systems, which works in the mind, where as objective knowledge is about objective reality independent of the mind and being epistemologically fair (Rene Descartes and all the other skeptical cases) and thus objective knowledge requires faith in that you and I are ontologically real and not in the Matrix or similar cases. I do believe in that this is not an illusion, but that requires faith to a skeptic like me.

1. In which book of Descates does he say this?
2. Also, which philosopher said that determination of a triangles number of sides is either objective or subjective is "functional tautology" and depends on the given definition, which didnt address anything?

Thanks in advance.

 

[viole]

Or the same source that says the Israelites massacred another nation (killing every man, woman, child, and infant) because their God ordered them to. Personally, I think that if someone wants to learn more about morality, then they shouldn't read the Bible, especially the Old Testament or the Book of Revelation. I fail to see how forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist, killing witches, brutally killing other people to take possession of a "promised land," and dashing infants against a rock is moral (Psalm 137:9).

As I said, I hope he did not mean that. That would be embarrassing. Like being the son of Rainhard Heydrich, ot something.

ciao

- viole

 

[Wildswanderer]

I hope it is not the same source into slavery and dashing kids against walls.

ciao

- viole

Neither abortion or slavery were created by God, but by men.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thats not a "method".

Anyway, you said



1. In which book of Descates does he say this?
2. Also, which philosopher said that determination of a triangles number of sides is either objective or subjective is "functional tautology" and depends on the given definition, which didnt address anything?

Thanks in advance.

No, I won't play with you today. Sorry. Not in the mood. Cheers.

 

[Bathos Logos]

It is a functional tautology. Whether it is objective and/or subjective depends on the given definitions.

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.

 

[viole]

Neither abortion or slavery were created by God, but by men.

Well, we know God allowed the latter. Did He allow the former, too? If not, why not?

Is killing a single human cell much worse than owning another full grown human being?

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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, now we are getting somewhere. It is objective in that it requires no emotional evaluation. It is subjective in that it requires a brain, it is not independent of brains as such and not all brains can understand it. Whether it is so just for this universe or all possible universes I don't know.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Well, now we are getting somewhere. It is objective in that it requires no emotional evaluation. It is subjective in that it requires a brain, it is not independent of brains as such and not all brains can understand it. Whether it is so just for this universe or all possible universes I don't know.

You couldn't draw a 2-dimensional triangle without it adhering to this principle no matter what "universe" you existed within. As stated, it is impossible to conceive of a triangle that does not adhere to this principle. Impossible to draw, impossible to imagine. It simply cannot exist.

And I would also argue that yes, this fact is entirely independent of brains. The proof is in the pudding. No matter what brain was doing the investigating, if it were able to come to a point at which it measured such, it would find the same results. In essence, this objective fact is there, waiting for any capable mind to realize it. It is not dependent on any given subject for this relationship to be entirely true, all day, every day, everywhere. Realization of the fact is dependent on an observer... but not the fact (or relationship) itself.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well, we know God allowed the latter. Did He allow the former, too? If not, why not?

Is killing a single human cell much worse than owning another full grown human being?

ciao

- viole

God allowed a lot that he didn't want. And scripture makes that clear. You want a God who controls everyone's actions?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You couldn't draw a 2-dimensional triangle without it adhering to this principle no matter what "universe" you existed within. As stated, it is impossible to conceive of a triangle that does not adhere to this principle. Impossible to draw, impossible to imagine. It simply cannot exist.

And I would also argue that yes, this fact is entirely independent of brains. The proof is in the pudding. No matter what brain was doing the investigating, if it were able to come to a point at which it measured such, it would find the same results. In essence, this objective fact is there, waiting for any capable mind to realize it. It is not dependent on any given subject for this relationship to be entirely true, all day, every day, everywhere. Realization of the fact is dependent on an observer... but not the fact (or relationship) itself.

Well, we are deep into philosophy. I have been there before.
So here is my position. You are a product of the rest of everything and as a part of everything, so you can never be independent of it and it can never be independent of you, unless you accept actual ontological dualism.
As for this: "...it is impossible to conceive..." that is in your brain and not independent of you, so that is subjective as a limit of your brain.