Why There is Probably No God

[Subduction Zone]

Apart from my own personal experience which is subjective and I cannot possible share adequately I can offer proofs but as I am trying to convey that as an atheist I was not interested in proofs although I asked door them.

As an atheist the only interest I ever had in demanding proofs was to deny them. I neither had the open mind to investigate or be unbiased or try and see the other person’s point of view.

Opposition was my sole and only aim and intention but I did change so I did finally realise how wrong I’d been.

Our main knowledge of the existence of a God or Ultimate Truth, Nirvana and so on seems to come from Beings such as Krishna, Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, Zoroaster, the Bab, Baha’u’llah and Moses.

Their lives and teachings conquered the hearts of people despite severe opposition, poverty and the utmost cruelty. How is it Their teachings were able to and are still influencing billions and billions and have altered the course of human history?

And Baha’u’llah. How did He know that human civilisation was about to become physically united that well before the UN or internet He based His religion on the unity of mankind. Had the technology not come about He would have been disgraced yet all these technologies are but enabling the unity of mankind.

There is no direction for humanity to go except to unite.

Because They had a power that came from God. Not an earthly power yet They were able to win over kings and Queens.

The problem with "personal experience" is that they can support any belief. They are not reliable. People can and do fool themselves quite often. You may have a very strong belief, but that is not knowing.


Denying "proofs" is not reasonable, if the evidence is reliable. But then I have yet to see evidence for a god myself. Who knows what was offered to you. Still the proper way to approach evidence would be to see if it is actual evidence or not. Reinterpreting holy books after the fact is one example of claims that are not evidence.

And I have no idea what your leader claimed. He appears to have merely made vague prophesies. Those are by definition failed prophesies.

 

[Valjean]

His claim was that God is a belief.

I know, but he made a claim, that God is a belief. In other words, he made a claim that God does not exist.

"God is a belief" and "God does not exist" are entirely different assertions. Obviously God is a belief. No one disputes that. But how do you get "God does not exist" out of it?

True, but he made a claim, that God is a belief, so he needs to support that claim with evidence.
I support my claims with evidence and the fact that atheists do not like my evidence does not mean it is not evidence. Logic 101.

It's not that we don't like the evidence, it's that it's either not evidence or it is flawed evidence. Intangible evidence isn't evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no more evidence for his claim than there is for my claim. In fact, there is more evidence for my claim because there is some evidence for my claim. What evidence does he have? Seems to me all he has is a personal opinion.

I see that you had a logical failure.

You confirm that God is a belief. That is not staying that God does not exist. You confirm that God is a belief because you do not appear to be able to post any evidence at all for his existence. A mere belief, which is all that you have, is a belief without reliable evidence.

And you do not get to see the evidence that he has until you can show one iota of honesty. Either post reliable evidence for your God or admit that you cannot think of any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not very convincing, are you trying to subscribe to a kind of pseudo-speculative incarnationism within the context of your atheism? (in the sense that you'd "believe" if it "came down" as a thing and communicated with you?)

Why is it not very convincing? Are you admitting that a god does not exist?

And in answer to your question: No.

 

[Trailblazer]

"God is a belief" and "God does not exist" are entirely different assertions. Obviously God is a belief. No one disputes that. But how do you get "God does not exist" out of it?

If God is only a belief, God is not real, so that means God does not exist.
If God exists, God is real.
Now do you understand the difference?

It's not that we don't like the evidence, it's that it's either not evidence or it is flawed evidence. Intangible evidence isn't evidence.

Who sets the standards for evidence and what it should be like? Who determines what is flawed evidence? Why does evidence have to be tangible?

Evidence is by definition the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief is true or valid. If it does not indicate whether a belief is true or valid to you, it is not evidence to you, but it it indicates that a belief is true or valid to me it is evidence to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If God is only a belief, God is not real, so that means God does not exist.

False dichotomy.

If God exists, God is real.
Now do you understand the difference?

Who sets the standards for evidence and what it should be like? Who determines what is flawed evidence? Why does evidence have to be tangible?

Evidence is by definition the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief is true or valid. If it does not indicate whether a belief is true or valid to you, it is not evidence to you, but it it indicates that a belief is true or valid to me it is evidence to me.

Your logic skills need a bit of a tweaking. Something can be both a belief and be real.. Areal object can be tested and it's reality confirmed.

And please note the title of this thread. It is a simple request that every theist has failed at.

It would have been wiser to have avoided this thread altogether.

 

[Firemorphic]

Why is it not very convincing?

Because you say "If a god can make the universe a physical manifestation would be child's play.", which by this you project the incarnationalist theology which I rampantly disagree with.
You say you're an atheist, so you've got to set your ground - which appears to be in the realm of the material (which is often a given).
Unless you have a particularly subject-consistent definition of what you expect in the first place (being "God"), you end up the subject of the "pool party drunk friend" analogy I made to Jos two pages ago.

Are you admitting that a god does not exist?

I said no such thing.

And in answer to your question: No.

Fascinating blunt answer there.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see that you had a logical failure.
You confirm that God is a belief. That is not staying that God does not exist. You confirm that God is a belief because you do not appear to be able to post any evidence at all for his existence. A mere belief, which is all that you have, is a belief without reliable evidence.

No, I did not confirm that. I have reliable evidence just like I have a reliable car in my driveway. Just because I do not drive my car over to show it to you does not mean I do not have a reliable car. Logic 101.

And you do not get to see the evidence that he has until you can show one iota of honesty. Either post reliable evidence for your God or admit that you cannot think of any.

I can think of plenty of evidence but there is too much to post on a forum. I already told you that. Baha'u'llah is the evidence that God exists. Baha’u’llah explained how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth); and then we look at His words (His Writings). All of this is evidence and it is verifiable through research.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

 

[Trailblazer]

False dichotomy.

Note that I said if God is only a belief, God is not real, so that means God does not exist.
But God could be a belief and also be real.

Your logic skills need a bit of a tweaking. Something can be both a belief and be real.. Areal object can be tested and it's reality confirmed.

I take no issue with that. A belief can be real or it can be a fantasy.

And please note the title of this thread. It is a simple request that every theist has failed at.

It would have been wiser to have avoided this thread altogether.

This thread is "Why there is probably no God." It is not a request to prove God exists.
Maybe you are the one on the wrong thread since you are sure there is no god.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The problem with "personal experience" is that they can support any belief. They are not reliable. People can and do fool themselves quite often. You may have a very strong belief, but that is not knowing.


Denying "proofs" is not reasonable, if the evidence is reliable. But then I have yet to see evidence for a god myself. Who knows what was offered to you. Still the proper way to approach evidence would be to see if it is actual evidence or not. Reinterpreting holy books after the fact is one example of claims that are not evidence.

And I have no idea what your leader claimed. He appears to have merely made vague prophesies. Those are by definition failed prophesies.

I offered the lives and teachings of Beings such as Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Zoroaster, Moses, the Bab and Baha’u’llah as evidence of a Supreme Being.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because you say "If a god can make the universe a physical manifestation would be child's play.", which by this you project the incarnationalist theology which I rampantly disagree with.
You say you're an atheist, so you've got to set your ground - which appears to be in the realm of the material (which is often a given).
Unless you have a particularly subject-consistent definition of what you expect in the first place (being "God"), you end up the subject of the "pool party drunk friend" analogy I made to Jos two pages ago.



I said no such thing.



Fascinating blunt answer there.

Nope. You appear to be projecting your beliefs upon others. A God that wanted to convince someone could appear any way that it wanted to.

Drop the rude false accusations and admit that you do not understand if you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I offered the lives and teachings of Beings such as Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Zoroaster, Moses, the Bab and Baha’u’llah as evidence of a Supreme Being.

How is that reliable evidence?. Theists do not appear to understand the concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Note that I said if God is only a belief, God is not real, so that means God does not exist.
But God could be a belief and also be real.

I take no issue with that. A belief can be real or it can be a fantasy.

This thread is "Why there is probably no God." It is not a request to prove God exists.
Maybe you are the one on the wrong thread since you are sure there is no god.

Please respond to what people say and not what you think they said.
Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I did not confirm that. I have reliable evidence just like I have a reliable car in my driveway. Just because I do not drive my car over to show it to you does not mean I do not have a reliable car. Logic 101.

I can think of plenty of evidence but there is too much to post on a forum. I already told you that. Baha'u'llah is the evidence that God exists. Baha’u’llah explained how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth); and then we look at His words (His Writings). All of this is evidence and it is verifiable through research.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

We have been over this before and why that is not reliable evidence.

 

[We Never Know]

That is true. But your constant claims of having evidence and your total inability to produce any indicates that you probably have no evidence. All you appear to have is wishful thinking.

There is nothing wrong with saying "I believe". For a religious belief that is enough. It is wrong to say "I know" when it is pretty obvious that one does not. It even brings one's claim of "I believe" into doubt since those That do believe would not need to falsely claim that they know.

What is evidence? Is it what we know or what we think we know. If it's what we think we know, then it really isn't evidence. Is it what we can show, when in reality we can show little in the universe or even understand little of the universe? The thing is we know we know some things and we know we don't know more things so on what we don't know we give an explanation of what we think which hardly will qualify for evidence, and evidence shows, we don't know or understand several things.
There is a lot of evidence that is accepted as evidence based on what we think we know.
If orange is the new black based on evidence, is orange really the new black?
Much evidence is only based upon our current knowledge. With that said, things we don't understand, we can't produce evidence for, but does that mean they don't exist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is evidence? Is it what we know or what we think we know. If it's what we think we know, then it really isn't evidence. Is it what we can show, when in reality we can show little in the universe or even understand little of the universe? The thing is we know we know some things and we know we don't know more things so on what we don't know we give an explanation of what we think which hardly will qualify for evidence, and evidence shows, we don't know or understand several things.
There is a lot of evidence that is accepted as evidence based on what we think we know.
If orange is the new black based on evidence, is orange really the new black?
Much evidence is only based upon our current knowledge. With that said, things we don't understand, we can't produce evidence for, but does that mean they don't exist?

Please note that I used a qualifier. Can you try again without rambling all over the place?

 

[We Never Know]

Please note that I used a qualifier. Can you try again without rambling all over the place?

Point out your qualifier and my ramblings. Then we can continue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Point out your qualifier and my ramblings. Then we can continue.

You jumped into the middle of a conversation. Time after time I used the qualifier "reliable". As to your rambling that whole nonsensical post qualifies as that.

 

[We Never Know]

You jumped into the middle of a conversation. Time after time I used the qualifier "reliable". As to your rambling that whole nonsensical post qualifies as that.

Hmmm. Are you saying you don't really have a point or an argement but you keep a back door open for escape when needed?
As far as ramblings, my post had more context than yours.

 

[We Never Know]

You jumped into the middle of a conversation. Time after time I used the qualifier "reliable". As to your rambling that whole nonsensical post qualifies as that.

By the way. The word "reliable" doesn't exist in your post I replied to.