Proof against the existence of God?

[F1fan]

That’s where people need to be mature enough not be be conned or bluffed into doing something against their own teachings.

I was taught how to reason, and that is why I can resist the social pressure to adopt religious concepts. Believers, like yourself, can't argue sufficiently as to why a thinker should be convinced of your claims. The primary liability is that there is no adequate evidence to support claims of any gods existing, so all related religious concepts fail as a result. The logical default for claims is that they are considered untrue until adequate evidence is presented.

In the past the priests held control over everyone but now that is disappearing with people able to see what they are teach8ngs is false.

Not in many theocracies. Even if you are a Sunni Muslim you might kill, or be kiiled, by a Shia Muslim.

In the recent protests in Iran women were openly denouncing the priests decrees saying ‘this is not Islam’ whereas in the past people just blindly followed. extremists and fanatics with some political axe to grind can’t be swayed but the average people are waking up to the lies the clergy has been spreading and are opposing it.

These protestors are fighting deadly oppression by extremist clerics. Even with these demonstrations many are being arrested and some executed. To win more people have to risk opposing these middlemen for God.

 

[nPeace]

What are those things?

You'll have to ask @TagliatelliMonster that.
I'm not sure he can make up his mind what's the best thing to come up with.

 

[Trailblazer]

But I did get it. And later I left it, like a movie I walked out on.

When I said "How could you know what you missed out on if you don't get it?" I was talking about the reward in the afterlife.
You did not get that because you have not even died yet.

To make the analogy more apt, assume that you had previously lived in Europe for a decade.

I said "It's kind of like if I had planned a trip to Europe and it was cancelled I will never know what Europe would have been like if I had gone there."

What you are assuming does not fit with my analogy since my analogy assumes that I had never been to Europe before to see the sights, just as you have never been to the afterlife to get the reward, and since you will not be getting the reward you could have had, you will never know what you could have had, just as I will never know what I would have seen in Europe.

Thanks, but that wouldn't be of value to me. Baha'u'llah's opinions aren't authoritative to me, and he's not here to defend them. If you tell me in your terms, I'll address that.

My terms are the same as what Baha'u'llah wrote, since that is the only way for me to know anything authoritative about the afterlife.

You have an interesting idea of what the world has to offer. But how would you know what that would be if your information about it comes from a book advising you to avoid it?

My information about what the world has to offer by way of material enjoyments and physical pleasures did not come for the Writings of Baha'u'llah, it comes from what I see on TV shows and other media, the endless advertising. It also comes from what I observe most other people talking about and doing in society -- eating, drinking, and being merry.

 

[Trailblazer]

This reminds me of two things. One, my parents saying "You'll never know what you have missed out on by not being good" (my sins were spelled out in more detail). They were referring to things they would have done for me, not some spiritual reward. My reaction was, that seemed like a convenient way to punish me without actually having to do so, because I could never know what I was missing out on in order to decide if that mattered to me.

That is an apt analogy. You will never know what you could have had by being a believer if you were never a believer. You will know what you missed out on in this life because you can see what believers get for believing, but you will not know what you missed out on in the afterlife since you will not see what the believers are getting in the afterlife. We are all thrown together in this life, believers and nonbelievers, but it won't be like that in the afterlife. We will be separated, so you won't see what the believers are getting.

I don't know exactly what I will be getting in the afterlife, I only know that it will be joy and gladness, but that is better than sorrow and grief.

The second is a silly joke that I'll insert to lighten the mood. Two Catholic priests are in heaven where they discover that the rewards are different types of car to drive around in. One is very sad because he got a mini and his friend got a Rolls Royce. Later they meet again and the priest in the mini is all smiles. He says, "I just saw the Pope on a skateboard".

To the point, you seem to be saying we won't be told what the different levels of reward are. Don't people talk to each other? Can't we just see what people have? Why won't God simply tell us, I thought all the mystery ended at the gates of heaven. I know there is no way you can answer that, it just seemed a bit odd to me.

I cannot say exactly what the afterlife will be like, but I believe there will be different levels of spiritual attainment, and souls will gravitate towards the level of which they are worthy. All the Baha'is won't even be on the same level since all Baha'is will not have had the same faith and conduct in this life.

“The people of Bahá, who are the inmates of the Ark of God, are, one and all, well aware of one another’s state and condition, and are united in the bonds of intimacy and fellowship. Such a state, however, must depend upon their faith and their conduct. They that are of the same grade and station are fully aware of one another’s capacity, character, accomplishments and merits. They that are of a lower grade, however, are incapable of comprehending adequately the station, or of estimating the merits, of those that rank above them. Each shall receive his share from thy Lord. Blessed is the man that hath turned his face towards God, and walked steadfastly in His love, until his soul hath winged its flight unto God, the Sovereign Lord of all, the Most Powerful, the Ever-Forgiving, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 170

People on the lower levels will not be able to comprehend or communicate with people on the levels above them, so they won't know what they could have had if they had wound up on a higher level. That applies to the Baha'is and everyone else.

I'll take the alcohol and indiscriminate sex. Not too worried about the hard drugs, though I've often wondered what LSD is like.

More to the point, I'd miss out on having to be sooooo serious all the time.

Different strokes for different folks. I never missed not having alcohol or indiscriminate sex.
I would miss out if I had to be serious all the time, but I am not that serious all the time. In fact, I am more lighthearted than serious. I see a lot of atheists on this forum who are a lot more serious than I am.

Have you never heard the old saying "having fun while you work?" Christians are not that fun but atheists are more fun than a bowl of cherries.

BTW, I have been propositioned by more than one atheist man on a dating site, and they were much younger than me. They wanted indiscriminate sex but when I explained that was against my religious beliefs they were very gracious about my declination.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, there is evidence for the existence of Jesus, but what he taught is a bit dubious. And parts of the New Testament are simply wrong. There are both parts that are refuted by history and failed prophecies. And all messengers appear to be flawed. Are those the best that God can do?

I good starting point for us is to agree Jesus was a real person. From a man who preached a relatively short period and has maintained such an influence, even two thousand years on is truly remarkable. About a third of the world's population identify as Christian. So whether or not God exists, the progress and triumph of Christianity against all odds is truly remarkable.

Likewise the Books of the New Testament continue to inspire millions.

The Gospels were not written for the purpose of recording history, rather than meeting the needs of the Church at the time and inspiring the faithful.

Prophecies tend to reinforce central themes in the Bible rather than providing making specific predictions.

I think God has done exceptionally well through the Life and Teachings of Jesus the Christ and the Gospel.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You can compare any two fictional entities and you will discover that what they all have in common is that though people might talk about them, one can never experience them through the senses. Believers are offended when their god is compared to any fictional character that they agree is fictional, whatever one chooses, be it Santa Claus, Superman, or fairies. Maybe it would be less offensive if one chose another god like Zeus or Odin. People believed in them as fervently as you do in your god.

I doubt if too many believers are offended by the comparison. As the comparison is so absurd it looks defensive and speaks of an unwillingness to engage in meaningful conversations.

In medicine we know about red flags to alert us to the possibility of serious illness. In interfaith discussion an atheist comparing my religious beliefs to pixies is a red flag alerting me to the likelihood of a discussion that will not end well.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Then with Muhammad, I thought the message came from an angel and not directly from God. That is... if it really happened at all.
Muslims believe that the Quran was orally revealed by God to the final prophet, Muhammad, through the archangel Gabriel.

That is correct.

But those Bible stories sound like fairy tales. Elijah flew off into the sky in a fiery chariot? Moses' staff turned into a snake? And I thought Baha'is didn't necessarily believe those stories were literally true? And if not, isn't that fiction?

No

Then there's just as much bad that came with the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad as there was good. With Jesus, the big influence was that he was the only way for a person to be saved from their sin and avoid being sent to hell along with Satan. Plus, add that people were told that Jesus was God. So, most of the "influence" or things that got people to believe in Christianity, according to Baha'i beliefs, weren't true.

People believed in Christianity because they believed in Jesus. The bible discusses the tares and wheat being harvested together and at some stage they need seperating. It doesn't take any special intellectual ability or spiritual perspective to separate the two.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I good starting point for us is to agree Jesus was a real person. From a man who preached a relatively short period and has maintained such an influence, even two thousand years on is truly remarkable. About a third of the world's population identify as Christian. So whether or not God exists, the progress and triumph of Christianity against all odds is truly remarkable.

Likewise the Books of the New Testament continue to inspire millions.

The Gospels were not written for the purpose of recording history, rather than meeting the needs of the Church at the time and inspiring the faithful.

Prophecies tend to reinforce central themes in the Bible rather than providing making specific predictions.

I think God has done exceptionally well through the Life and Teachings of Jesus the Christ and the Gospel.

It is an abuse of prophecy to treat them as predictions They all tend to fail when one looks at them honestly. But as you said, they can be used to reinforce concepts.

I have recently been debating the Tyre prophecy and some that have argued against me claiming that it was fulfilled never even read the whole thing. At the end of it Ezekiel admits that Nebuchadnezzar did not accomplish what he claimed that he would. And then he made another prophecy that never happened.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It is an abuse of prophecy to treat them as predictions They all tend to fail when one looks at them honestly. But as you said, they can be used to reinforce concepts.

I have recently been debating the Tyre prophecy and some that have argued against me claiming that it was fulfilled never even read the whole thing. At the end of it Ezekiel admits that Nebuchadnezzar did not accomplish what he claimed that he would. And then he made another prophecy that never happened.

It sounds exhausting. What are you hoping to achieve?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You'll have to ask @TagliatelliMonster that.

All kinds of atheist believe all kinds of things.
The only thing that defines an atheist is that (s)he doesn't believe theistic claims.

That's it.

I'm not sure he can make up his mind what's the best thing to come up with.

Everybody but you understood what I said.
And I'm not so sure you didn't understand it either. I think you're just trolling.

 

[rational experiences]

The God science wants is a base substance of all things.

So humans argue there isn't a God. As each base substance science uses is its owned base.

Theists said God by term created everything. To try to overcome his false advice.

Yes says greedy man and I want it all.

Imagine how rich I'd be if non stop supply God as resources was by my control.

So you'd look at human behaviour. If men claim I can access it and control it...all choices are about the machine.

Practice of man's science is exact.

So what is a Theist s claim of God?

He says a suns star mass to dust above... cross burning cooling now a UFO.

The machine he believes is God.

So we natural humans have to argue what meanings we gave God to save ourselves.

Therefore if humans believe they came from the eternal form. Are alive by sex only. Are still bio converting in heavens as life bio ages then dies. Decomposed bio as just cells then skeletons disintegrate.

Science would know human death absolute end as bio conscious body C 100 years. You'd add a conversion probability of how many natural years for total bio decomposition. Then body to dusts.

That timed human information would state nope isn't the origin source of mass in created creation. So he can stop attacking us in heavens.

If that's what it takes for a human who believes our parents were spiritual beings yet only believes a machine reaction invented biology.

By transmitters.

 

[nPeace]

All kinds of atheist believe all kinds of things.
The only thing that defines an atheist is that (s)he doesn't believe theistic claims.

That's it.

Please explain how that's different to what I said.

Everybody but you understood what I said.
And I'm not so sure you didn't understand it either. I think you're just trolling.

I hit the nail on the head.
You are just feinting ignorance.

I'll put it in baby language then.
If you believe in superstitious things without evidence.
Then you might as well believe in gods, without evidence.

Claiming that you have good reason - lack of evidence - for not believing in gods is a bogus claimed, which you exposed, by admitting that you do believe in superstitious / imagined things, without evidence.

If evidence is not required to believe in "all kinds of things", including superstitious beliefs, then evidence is not required to believe in gods... for the "naturally superstitious" atheist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please explain how that's different to what I said.

You are so much over the place that it's hard to decipher what you try to say.
You seem to be just arguing for the sake of doing so.

I hit the nail on the head.
You are just feinting ignorance.

Ignorance about what?

I'll put it in baby language then.
If you believe in superstitious things without evidence.
Then you might as well believe in gods, without evidence.

That make no sense at all.
I actively try to not believe things without (or on bad) evidence. But I also know that I will make mistakes and engage in type 2 cognition errors also, since I am a human. Upon realizing my mistakes, I will change my beliefs.

What you said there is like saying that since we know that we will make mistakes at times, we might as well not bother to try and not make mistakes and do everything wrong on purpose and not care.

That's just retarded.

Claiming that you have good reason - lack of evidence - for not believing in gods is a bogus claimed

It's not. When you realize that a certain claim has no evidence, it is anything but bogus to not believe said claim.

, which you exposed, by admitting that you do believe in superstitious / imagined things, without evidence.

Admitting that I too can make mistakes, is not a reason to not care about mistakes and believe false things on purpose.

As usual, you make zero sense.

If evidence is not required to believe in "all kinds of things",

I never said that. That's what your trolling self made of it.

including superstitious beliefs, then evidence is not required to believe in gods... for the "naturally superstitious" atheist.

Again, this is just foolish on your part.

You should think things through a bit more.

Realizing that one will make mistakes at times, is not a reason to not care about making mistakes and then just go ahead and make them on purpose.
Au contraire, it's an extra reason to be extra careful.

 

[nPeace]

Sacred Scripture tends to make the incomprehensible something we can grasp through the use of an image or metaphor we call all identify with

The Biblical narrative concerning Jesus as the Son of God speaks of an intimate and loving connection between Christ and the Father. Yet Jesus was not literally the son of God as you and I are sons of our parents. God had no consort and did not take Mary the mother of Jesus as His wife. Yet through the analogy we come to better understand the relationship between God and Jesus.

So while the use of imagery concerning a spouse or friend is there in black and white print, the nature of our relationship with God is anything but.

I'm not sure if you are aware that I am not in sync with so called Christianity today.
The Bible does not tell us Jesus is the son of God, through Mary.
To the contrary, it tells us that Jesus is the son of God, through creation. - Proverbs 8:22; Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14

All of God's heavenly sons were brought forth in this way. They were created.
(Job 38:7) When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?

So too, the first human son - Adam.

So the Bible gives us a picture of a father son relationship, which we can relate to, as Jesus* is the firstborn of God's heavenly children - sons, who spent eons building a close relationship with his father, and worked along with him.

Thus we understand why Jesus love for his father is so great, and why Jesus could say...
(John 14:31) . . .I love the Father, I am doing just as the Father has commanded me to do.. . .
(John 12:49-50) 49 . . .I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.”

We too, can become sons and daughters, having a similar close intimate relationship with our heavenly father.
(2 Corinthians 6:18) “‘And I will become a father to you, and you will become sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah, the Almighty.”

* Jesus is the name given to God's son, on earth. His name in heaven is Michael.

 

[nPeace]

You are so much over the place that it's hard to decipher what you try to say.
You seem to be just arguing for the sake of doing so.



Ignorance about what?



That make no sense at all.
I actively try to not believe things without (or on bad) evidence. But I also know that I will make mistakes and engage in type 2 cognition errors also, since I am a human. Upon realizing my mistakes, I will change my beliefs.

What you said there is like saying that since we know that we will make mistakes at times, we might as well not bother to try and not make mistakes and do everything wrong on purpose and not care.

That's just retarded.



It's not. When you realize that a certain claim has no evidence, it is anything but bogus to not believe said claim.



Admitting that I too can make mistakes, is not a reason to not care about mistakes and believe false things on purpose.

As usual, you make zero sense.



I never said that. That's what your trolling self made of it.



Again, this is just foolish on your part.

You should think things through a bit more.

Realizing that one will make mistakes at times, is not a reason to not care about making mistakes and then just go ahead and make them on purpose.
Au contraire, it's an extra reason to be extra careful.

You don't seem to understand what you are saying. I certainly don't.
I only see you trying to get away from what you said.
Humans are naturally superstitious.
Atheists believe these superstitious things... without evidence.

I don't think I have to go on with this charade, or game.
Enough said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't seem to understand what you are saying. I certainly don't.
I only see you trying to get away from what you said.
Humans are naturally superstitious.
Atheists believe these superstitious things... without evidence.

I don't think I have to go on with this charade, or game.
Enough said.

Can someone ask @nPeace for me what he thinks that atheists believe without evidence? I refuted him too many times so he "ran away" from me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't seem to understand what you are saying. I certainly don't.

I agree that you don't.

I only see you trying to get away from what you said.

I see you insisting on that, but you seemingly can only argue it from a strawman context and / or by playing dumb.

Humans are naturally superstitious.
Atheists believe these superstitious things... without evidence.

I don't think I have to go on with this charade, or game.
Enough said.

Yes, I said that. I also explained it. Then clarified it when you didn't comprehend it.
So what? What's your point?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can someone ask @nPeace for me what he thinks that atheists believe without evidence? I refuted him too many times so he "ran away" from me.

He's playing dumb to a post I made in reply to the OP.

To summarize:

As evidence against gods, I said that humans have a natural tendency to engage in type 2 cognition errors (the false positives) which is a form and / or the basis of superstitious beliefs.

I also said that no human is immune to such cognition errors, by virtue of being human.
After a trollish reply on his part, I clarified and gave an example of myself where I drew a wrong conclusion once as a result of such a false positive mistake (I had mistaken a coincidental correlation with a causal relationship).

He then jumped on that by bizarly claiming that "since I believe things without evidence I might as well believe in gods without evidence". As if acknowledging that nobody is perfect and WILL make mistakes at times, no matter how hard we try not to, means that we might as well not care at all and not try and avoid making mistakes and even make them on purpose and simply not care. Very strange.

And he seems to think he scored points by saying something so stupid.


It's hard to have an intelligent and honest conversation with a mind that dense.

 

[nPeace]

He's playing dumb to a post I made in reply to the OP.

To summarize:

As evidence against gods, I said that humans have a natural tendency to engage in type 2 cognition errors (the false positives) which is a form and / or the basis of superstitious beliefs.

I also said that no human is immune to such cognition errors, by virtue of being human.
After a trollish reply on his part, I clarified and gave an example of myself where I drew a wrong conclusion once as a result of such a false positive mistake (I had mistaken a coincidental correlation with a causal relationship).

He then jumped on that by bizarly claiming that "since I believe things without evidence I might as well believe in gods without evidence". As if acknowledging that nobody is perfect and WILL make mistakes at times, no matter how hard we try not to, means that we might as well not care at all and not try and avoid making mistakes and even make them on purpose and simply not care. Very strange.

And he seems to think he scored points by saying something so stupid.


It's hard to have an intelligent and honest conversation with a mind that dense.

Being abusive does not make you look intelligent.
You said...
Humans are naturally superstitious.
Atheists believe these superstitious things... without evidence.

My point is, you admitted atheists believe things without evidence. Therefore, the claim that you do not believe in gods, on the basis that you only believe things if there is evidence is a bogus claim. i.e. it's hogwash.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Humans are naturally superstitious.
Atheists believe these superstitious things... without evidence.

HUMANS are naturally superstitious.
Not just atheists. HUMANS.

My point is, you admitted atheists believe things without evidence. Therefore, the claim that you do not believe in gods, on the basis that you only believe things if there is evidence is a bogus claim. i.e. it's hogwash.

It's not and even after multiple clarifications, you are still stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I said that I actively try to not believe things on bad or no evidence.
I also said that as I am human, I am not immune to making mistakes.
I don't know how to state it any clearer.

I see no evidence of gods. So I don't believe in gods.
What more do you want me to tell you?

@Subduction Zone : see?