There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[loverofhumanity]

That is so lazy. There is no world where someone's mere existence is evidence of the things that they claim are true. At best, actions are evidence of their sincerity. It is not evidence that they had the least clue.

Without the Life we don’t have the teachings. Quite clear and today it should be obvious to one and all that we humans are not equipped to solve the current crises which involves Christian, Muslim and Jewish nations. Wars breaking out everywhere yet Baha’u’llah offered a solution. We are headed into a war worse than the past two world wars put together and we still don’t examine the universal worldwide solution Baha’u’llah gave. We can try it and if it doesn’t work then go back to our warring ways but it is unjust to condemn it without first trying it.

His Plan begins with calling all the worlds leaders to a world summit to thrash out a peace plan for all humanity and will require the agreement of all peoples. Involves simultaneous disarmament, a world court with teeth and much much more too much to post here I think.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That is poor thinking on your part. There is no need to show that the Bible is a work of fiction. Or even make that supposition. No one has to assume that you are telling porky pies. The simple fact of the matter is that no one, including you, has demonstrated that they know or are capable of knowing that there is a god. Until that occurs, neither you, nor the authors of the Bible are credible.

You have based your reasoning on an unsupported premise. Your assertion cannot be tested, unlike the the observation that there is a God, and His presence can felt by those who truly seek Him.

 

[PureX]

That is so lazy. There is no world where someone's mere existence is evidence of the things that they claim are true. At best, actions are evidence of their sincerity. It is not evidence that they had the least clue.

That's not accurate. For example; the fact that we can formulate a question is evidence that it needed/deserved to be asked. And that it therefor needs/deserves to be considered and answered if possible. The "mere existence" of the question ( and thereby the one asking it) renders the question valid.

"I think therefor I am" is a foundational philosophical axiom.

 

[Audie]

I enjoyed reading your post and I think I understand some of what you say. My understanding is that most of todays religions are irrelevant for our age and therefore offer no solution for todays problems as their mission was for different ages and times. So they couldn’t prevent or stop WW1 & WW2 and the possible upcoming one.

But the solution put forward by Baha’u’llah has not yet been tried. Baha’u’llah‘s call is for the nations and religions to unite and for the oneness and equality of all people to become international binding law and re education to eliminate prejudices and foster reconciliation. People who acknowledge the equality of all humanity of whatever belief have no problem getting long with anyone. It doesn't matter who promotes it but the oneness of humanity needs to take root I believe, or we will have a war far worse than the last two. This is what the times demand of each and every one of us - to put aside our differences and get along with one another. The ‘us vs them’ mentality and mindset is incompatible with a nuclear age. Unity and reconciliation is really the only choice we will either voluntarily choose or be forced into after unimaginable violence which is gathering momentum daily.

Sorry, but as soon as you mention your B... guy,
Im going to quit reading.

 

[Kenny]

What I find quite interesting, as in the first post, is that there is such a fixation on “there is no proof” as if to say that if someone who believers there is a God (or gods), are less intelligent or have no basis for their belief when they are satisfied on how they came to believe as they trusted their personal methods of proof.

If one doesn’t believe, fine. Everyone has the right to not believe as does the one who does.

Approaching a subject with different perspectives actually can enhance progress. Differences doesn’t have to mean a battle.

I’m not out to specifically target atheists because they are atheists. They are intelligent people that simply came to a different conclusion. One may not agree with my determination or process, but it is my veiw and it made a difference in my life. If a person became an atheist and became a better person… good for them. Help your neighbor and lets move forward.

If one wants to simply dialogue to challenge their own belief… great. If one doesn’t care about the other persons position, they why fixate on the other persons belief system?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To say there is no higher intelligence in all the universes would be a very illogical an inaccurate assumption because no one knows all there is to know to be able to make such a conclusion.

That's not the claim of the agnostic atheist.

Christ, Moses, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna and Baha’u’llah I believe prove that there is a greater Intelligence than us humans.

Not to me. They're all people that did what people do and said what people say. Their intelligence is very human.

materialists which claim to be rationalists want to see a physical God otherwise will not believe notwithstanding that the laws of physics and gravity are very much alive yet invisible.

Why should one believe in undetectable gods? The effects of gravity are quite evident and predictable. Gods not so much.

Qualities of human beings just as love, justice compassion too are invisible powers that we readily accept because they leave ‘effects’ just like the physical laws.

The effect of love is also quite evident.

just as the blind can deny the existence of the sun so too the spiritually blind will deny the existence of God.

Also not an apt analogy. There isn't much "ahelioism" (a nonce word for disbelief in the existence of a sun) for a good reason. The sun clearly exists. You keep trying to get a god in through the back door by comparing it to things we experience like gravity, love, and the sun. Gods are more like the muses and succubi.

I believe from the types of arguments presented here that most are not sincerely seeking but just come here for entertainment purposes to mock those who do believe.

I'm not here to mock you, but the faithful say some pretty outrageous, mockworthy things, and ...

"Ridicule is the great equalizer against the angry, harsh judgment coming from the pulpit. It is much kinder, because it doesn't ask you to hurt the target like the angry scapegoating from the church, just laugh at it. We can offer reasoned argument to those that can care about such things, and appeal to the consciences of those that have them. But ridicule is useful to intimidate those not amenable to either." - anon

And yes I come here seeking, but not seeking gods.

the solution put forward by Baha’u’llah has not yet been tried. Baha’u’llah‘s call is for the nations and religions to unite and for the oneness and equality of all people to become international binding law and re education to eliminate prejudices and foster reconciliation.

That's not a solution. It's goal, and it's been voiced by millions for millennia. The trick is to come up with a successful plan. The ism that has done the most to promote tolerance and unity is humanism, which gave us the modern democratic state and which resists the bigotries the religions promote.

Quite clear and today it should be obvious to one and all that we humans are not equipped to solve the current crises which involves Christian, Muslim and Jewish nations.

So you see the solution to that being more religion?

"Religion. It's given hope in a world torn apart by religion." - Jon Stewart (you can call that mockery and I wouldn't disagree, but it's not mean-spirited or misguided; it's right on and witty)

 

[Audie]

That's not the claim of the agnostic atheist.

Not to me. They're all people that did what people do and said what people say. Their intelligence is very human.

Why should one believe in undetectable gods? The effects of gravity are quite evident and predictable. Gods not so much.

The effect of love is also quite evident.

Also not an apt analogy. There isn't much "ahelioism" (a nonce word for disbelief in the existence of a sun) for a good reason. The sun clearly exists. You keep trying to get a god in through the back door by comparing it to things we experience like gravity, love, and the sun. Gods are more like the muses and succubi.

I'm not here to mock you, but the faithful say some pretty outrageous, mockworthy things, and ...

"Ridicule is the great equalizer against the angry, harsh judgment coming from the pulpit. It is much kinder, because it doesn't ask you to hurt the target like the angry scapegoating from the church, just laugh at it. We can offer reasoned argument to those that can care about such things, and appeal to the consciences of those that have them. But ridicule is useful to intimidate those not amenable to either." - anon

And yes I come here seeking, but not seeking gods.

That's not a solution. It's goal, and it's been voiced by millions for millennia. The trick is to come up with a successful plan. The ism that has done the most to promote tolerance and unity is humanism, which gave us the modern democratic state and which resists the bigotries the religions promote.

So you see the solution to that being more religion?

"Religion. It's given hope in a world torn apart by religion." - Jon Stewart (you can call that mockery and I wouldn't disagree, but it's not mean-spirited or misguided; it's right on and witty)

He's quite right that I don't cone
here " seeking" ( any religion to
adopt). But then, the so called
"Seekers' seeketh less than I; for
Lo, they think they've a.ready found Truth
in what some guy said.

Also wrong in the mockery.
IF someone were doing that theyd
get moderated right out of here.
So the claim is clearly and inherently
false.
More, worse, it's just the play- victim
bit, a sorry ploy to elevate ones own
nobility while demonizing the reprobates
who lack all sincerity and just amuse themselves
with low and trashy behaviour toward the virtuous and good.

Who, BTW, seek to " re- educate" the likes of thee and me.

 

[PureX]

What I find quite interesting, as in the first post, is that there is such a fixation on “there is no proof” as if to say that if someone who believers there is a God (or gods), are less intelligent or have no basis for their belief when they are satisfied on how they came to believe as they trusted their personal methods of proof.

If one doesn’t believe, fine. Everyone has the right to not believe as does the one who does.

Approaching a subject with different perspectives actually can enhance progress. Differences doesn’t have to mean a battle.

I’m not out to specifically target atheists because they are atheists. They are intelligent people that simply came to a different conclusion. One may not agree with my determination or process, but it is my veiw and it made a difference in my life. If a person became an atheist and became a better person… good for them. Help your neighbor and lets move forward.

If one wants to simply dialogue to challenge their own belief… great. If one doesn’t care about the other persons position, they why fixate on the other persons belief system?

The whole point of demanding proof is to put the demander in the judge's seat and thereby make the demand-e the "defendant". It is an ego/power thing. Especially when we consider that "proof" is a completely subjective threshold.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The whole point of demanding proof is to put the demander in the judge's seat and thereby make the demand-e the "defendant". It is an ego/power thing. Especially when we consider that "proof" is a completely subjective threshold.

You continue to mischaracterize the skeptic. "Where's your evidence?" is a rhetorical question, that is, not a request for information, but a statement, in this case meaning, "There is no evidence for gods sufficient to justify belief."

This is from the OP: "I’ve been reading through a couple of threads, and I see that it is said that there is no evidence for a god, it’s an unfalsifiable idea. We all agree on this? If you don’t, care to explain the evidence there is for god? I’m in agreement."

What is he saying or asking? He's saying that he believes that you can't make a case for your god belief and offering you a chance to falsify that belief, but he knows like I do that you can't. It's a rhetorical device.

Sure, we'd take proof if you had it, but compelling evidence is what is required for the critical thinker to believe, and you don't have that, either.

That doesn't matter to you, so you demean it mattering to others. You mock requiring compelling evidence before belief because you don't require it.

Also, your pop psychology is incorrect. You've got it reversed. It's YOUR ego that feels threatened, as well as YOUR powerlessness to persuade or be believed that agitates you and causes you to write grievance posts like this one. Look at the tone you use. You resent the opinions you read. My ego does not feel threatened by your beliefs or claims.

And yes, your words are subject to judgment. That's what critical analysis is. It judges.

And no, compelling evidence is not an arbitrary threshold. There exists a formal method for evaluating evidence that generates sound conclusions that can be tested and confirmed. It the same one I just referred to, the one that judges.

 

[Kenny]

You continue to mischaracterize the skeptic. "Where's your evidence?" is a rhetorical question, that is, not a request for information, but a statement, in this case meaning, "There is no evidence for gods sufficient to justify belief."

You mock requiring compelling evidence before belief because you don't require it.

And no, compelling evidence is not an arbitrary threshold. There exists a formal method for evaluating evidence that generates sound conclusions that can be tested and confirmed. It the same one I just referred to, the one that judges.

I disagree… case in point:

My chiropractic friend, Chad, during his schooling was with his atheist friend dissecting a body. The job for that day was to follow a nerve that went from the brain to the neck; to the spinal chord; through the leg; down to one of the toes.

As they were dissecting and following the nerve, the atheist said, “There is no way evolution could have done this” and became a believer.

For him, it was compelling enough. For another person it would not be. Arbitrary for each person. I agree with the position, someone else would not.

To say "There is no evidence for gods sufficient to justify belief.” would deny the reality of the atheist chiropractor. Likewise so is, “ compelling evidence is not an arbitrary threshold."

 

[SkepticThinker]

I disagree… case in point:

My chiropractic friend, Chad, during his schooling was with his atheist friend dissecting a body. The job for that day was to follow a nerve that went from the brain to the neck; to the spinal chord; through the leg; down to one of the toes.

As they were dissecting and following the nerve, the atheist said, “There is no way evolution could have done this” and became a believer.

For him, it was compelling enough. For another person it would not be. Arbitrary for each person. I agree with the position, someone else would not.

To say "There is no evidence for gods sufficient to justify belief.” would deny the reality of the atheist chiropractor. Likewise so is, “ compelling evidence is not an arbitrary threshold."

This hypothetical atheist would be making an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies aren't great reasons to believe things.

This hypothetical atheist is not using sound reasoning.


This is a really weird example anyway that conflates atheism and evolution.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As they were dissecting and following the nerve, the atheist said, “There is no way evolution could have done this” and became a believer. For him, it was compelling enough. For another person it would not be. Arbitrary for each person. I agree with the position, someone else would not.

@SkepticThinker beat me to it. You've cited an incredulity fallacy. His conclusion is unsound and probably incorrect.

If one's means of deciding the truth of propositions isn't the academic one, then it doesn't generate truth. Remember, there is only one correct way to do addition. If one follows the academic path and adheres to the rules of arithmetic faithfully, he will generate a correct sum every time. 2+2 must always = 4. If he chooses an arbitrary way of adding - some rogue "reasoning" - then he's gone off the path to truth into the weeds.

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

Incidentally, there is no single nerve that goes from the cortex to the toe (or from the toe to the cortex). If we're talking about a motor nerve, we have an upper motor neuron in the corticospinal tract synapsing with a lower motor neuron in the spinal cord.

To say "There is no evidence for gods sufficient to justify belief.” would deny the reality of the atheist chiropractor.

We deny one another's reality. Do you think we shouldn't?

 

[Audie]

I disagree… case in point:

My chiropractic friend, Chad, during his schooling was with his atheist friend dissecting a body. The job for that day was to follow a nerve that went from the brain to the neck; to the spinal chord; through the leg; down to one of the toes.

As they were dissecting and following the nerve, the atheist said, “There is no way evolution could have done this” and became a believer.

For him, it was compelling enough. For another person it would not be. Arbitrary for each person. I agree with the position, someone else would not.

To say "There is no evidence for gods sufficient to justify belief.” would deny the reality of the atheist chiropractor. Likewise so is, “ compelling evidence is not an arbitrary threshold."

Goodness! An anecdote about,
about, yes, an argument from incredulity
causing instant Comversion!

There is btw, no such nerve as you describe.

So,yeah, I do deny the reality of yout story.


As to the point you attempt with this apocryphal
accountl -

None could deny that people vary wildly in their
notions of good and sufficient evidence. No effort or story needed to illustrate it.

I am reminded of a stroll across campus with this other girl.
A fine red maple leaf fell at our feet.
" Oh look" she says. "It's a Sign. To represent the
Trinity!".
Being a tiresome biology major I said, " So why does it have five parts?".

And ogf she goes about the pentarch.

A dreamy airhead.

Such vapid undisciplined thinking is not really about evidence.

We do have fields inwhich careful thinking , logic, facts,
you know, that tiresome stuff that takes effort and doesnt
always go where you hope.

Science and law have carefully worked ou what constitutes good and sufficient evidence. " Arbitrary" or " different for each" has no place in science and has meaning
re population dynmamics, how electricity works,
the age of fossils, or organic chemistry.

"Two plus two equals four" is not arbitrary or subje ct to
change because someone indulges in some other belief.

Anything that is wide open to such mushy garbage
as the individual choices for evidence is not worth
any consideration.

As in -

Your notions of "evidence" serve only to duscredit your beliefs.

ETA

I got beaten to it twice!

 

[ppp]

Without the Life we don’t have the teachings.

All that teachings require is a person to conceive of and teach them. It doesn't require that the teachings be true or useful or worthy of respect.

Quite clear and today it should be obvious to one and all that we humans are not equipped to solve the current crises which involves Christian, Muslim and Jewish nations.

That is, of course, your opinion.

Wars breaking out everywhere yet Baha’u’llah offered a solution.

He did not.

We are headed into a war worse than the past two world wars put together and we still don’t examine the universal worldwide solution Baha’u’llah gave. We can try it and if it doesn’t work then go back to our warring ways but it is unjust to condemn it without first trying it.
His Plan begins with calling all the worlds leaders to a world summit to thrash out a peace plan for all humanity and will require the agreement of all peoples. Involves simultaneous disarmament, a world court with teeth and much much more too much to post here I think.

That is not a plan. That is not even a beginning of a plan. That is mere preaching and marketing for your religion. A plan requires detailed specificity. An actual plan requires an outline of actions that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. These are known conventually by the acronym of SMART goals. There are other variations on the approach to creating a plan, but all practical variations focus on components that force people to think through the details and create a roadmap for execution, which is a far cry from the overly general statements of your religion's teachings.

Competency is demonstrated through practical action. About a year ago, on the thread Baha'i -- What have you done for me lately...or ever?, I asked for hard evidence of that competency.

I keep getting told that the Baha'i are all about equality and the oneness of humanity. I have poked through some of their history and have a hard time discerning how those principles manifests in reality.

With regards to social equality and justice, what practical efforts and tangible support have the Baha'i as an organization lent to any of the safety, enfranchisement, or suffrage movements over the last century or so?

A few people tried to respond, but they inevitably shied away from any practical demonstration of value. Y'all talk the talk, but when will you start walking the walk?

 

[ppp]

You have based your reasoning on an unsupported premise. Your assertion cannot be tested, unlike the the observation that there is a God, and His presence can felt by those who truly seek Him.

Are you actually claiming that there is falsification criteria for the existence of your god?

 

[Audie]

All that teachings require is a person to conceive of and teach them. It doesn't require that the teachings be true or useful or worthy of respect.


That is, of course, your opinion.

He did not.

That is not a plan. That is not even a beginning of a plan. That is mere preaching and marketing for your religion. A plan requires detailed specificity. An actual plan requires an outline of actions that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. These are known conventually by the acronym of SMART goals. There are other variations on the approach to creating a plan, but all practical variations focus on components that force people to think through the details and create a roadmap for execution, which is a far cry from the overly general statements of your religion's teachings.

Competency is demonstrated through practical action. About a year ago, on the thread Baha'i -- What have you done for me lately...or ever?, I asked for hard evidence of that competency.



A few people tried to respond, but they inevitably shied away from any practical demonstration of value. Y'all talk the talk, but when will you start walking the walk?

I don't want them walking there walk, not on me.

 

[Kenny]

@SkepticThinker beat me to it. You've cited an incredulity fallacy. His conclusion is unsound and probably incorrect.

If one's means of deciding the truth of propositions isn't the academic one, then it doesn't generate truth. Remember, there is only one correct way to do addition. If one follows the academic path and adheres to the rules of arithmetic faithfully, he will generate a correct sum every time. 2+2 must always = 4. If he chooses an arbitrary way of adding - some rogue "reasoning" - then he's gone off the path to truth into the weeds.

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

Incidentally, there is no single nerve that goes from the cortex to the toe (or from the toe to the cortex). If we're talking about a motor nerve, we have an upper motor neuron in the corticospinal tract synapsing with a lower motor neuron in the spinal cord.

I think you missed my point completely if all you have as the answer is “incredulity fallacy”.

My point was that it is subjective - it isn’t just “show me the proof” because “proof” is different for different people. Not trying to convince you on what you perceive as what “proof” is.

Forgive my “not being exact” on the nerves. The point was “following the nerves (or nerve) on how it reaches the toe. Whether the tibial nerve is just a connecting nerve… somehow the brain reaches the toe.

We deny one another's reality. Do you think we shouldn't?

Not at all… if you read what I said… anyone can deny someone else’s reality because it is subjective. But what is presented is that one must deny the ex-atheist’s reality of proof as you have suggested.

 

[ppp]

That's not accurate. For example; the fact that we can formulate a question is evidence that it needed/deserved to be asked. And that it therefor needs/deserves to be considered and answered if possible. The "mere existence" of the question ( and thereby the one asking it) renders the question valid.

Setting aside the fact that you are incorrect about need and desert, you are not responding to what I said. I indicted the demonstration, not the question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@SkepticThinker beat me to it. You've cited an incredulity fallacy. His conclusion is unsound and probably incorrect.

If one's means of deciding the truth of propositions isn't the academic one, then it doesn't generate truth. Remember, there is only one correct way to do addition. If one follows the academic path and adheres to the rules of arithmetic faithfully, he will generate a correct sum every time. 2+2 must always = 4. If he chooses an arbitrary way of adding - some rogue "reasoning" - then he's gone off the path to truth into the weeds.

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

Incidentally, there is no single nerve that goes from the cortex to the toe (or from the toe to the cortex). If we're talking about a motor nerve, we have an upper motor neuron in the corticospinal tract synapsing with a lower motor neuron in the spinal cord.

We deny one another's reality. Do you think we shouldn't?

I may have beaten you to it, but your response was better than mine.

 

[PureX]

What is the criteria and threshold for 'proof'? And who is deciding this? ... Based on what? And if I want to see it met, yet am not seeing it being met, who's responsibility is that? After all, I set the criteria, I determine the requirements, and I decide the outcome. So ... how does it become someone else's responsibility to convince me, and their failure when they don't?