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

[F1fan]

Rational minds would know that there can never be proof of God's existence so they would never expect proof.

They don't. Yet theists keep acting as if they know God exists.

No doubt theists believe their version of God exists but they shouldn't be confident about it.

 

[F1fan]

There is no test that would prove that a Messenger really heard from God

Great, then it's wise to not believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

But still, you "know" that Jesus is not God? What was it? Because God can't become a man? And you know that for a fact?

I do not know anything as a fact because religious beliefs are not factual, but logic tells anyone who is logical that God cannot become a man. Such a belief is utterly absurd.

Or, is it based on your Baha'i beliefs and not on something that can be proven? Which would mean it is not a "fact" it's your opinion based on what your religion tells you that is true?

It is not based upon my Baha'i beliefs, it is based upon the Bible and logic! Jesus never claimed to be God.

But if you are using logic and reason and lack of proof from Christians, then you're doing to the trinity belief of some Christians what Atheists are doing to your unprovable belief in your concept of God.

The 100 dollar difference is that Baha'i beliefs are rational whereas the Trinity belief is irrational, as many adept atheists have pointed out on this forum.

 

[Trailblazer]

They don't. Yet theists keep acting as if they know God exists.

Some of us do know but not because we have proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

Great, then it's wise to not believe.

It's your choice, even if I do not consider it a wise one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

One cannot know if one does not have proof. Without proof it is blind faith, imagination.

 

[F1fan]

Some of us do know but not because we have proof.

Then you don't know.

 

[Truthseeker]

Why do you believe in God and that Baha'u'llah is a messenger/manifestation of God?

Okay, it's early and I have time to answer.

I was attracted initially to the emphasis on unity, that humanity was one, and that all religions come from God. It was my brother who brought who brought the Baha'i Faith to my attention. At first I didn't read anything but over the summer after my freshman year in college I started to read Baha'i literature. At first I didn't get that "vibe" from the Writings, including what is now my favorite, the Hidden Words by Baha'u'llah. There seemed to be nothing spiritual about them, they fell flat with me. Then one day I was reading the introductory section of the Seven Valleys, before the valley of search. It was then that I perceived that this was the Word of God. It had the "vibe", it seemed the essence of spirituality. I had "woken up". The Hidden Words now also seemed the essence of spirituality.

After that I had ups and downs. I had a Christian friend tell me that Baha'u'llah was a killer. You see he had read literature apparently by at least one enemy of the Baha'i Faith. I was naive and gave credence to what he was saying. You might say that was the first lesson I realized later on that the independent investigation of truth was needed. I believed him without checking to see if he was right. However, that essence of spirituality I felt when I read the Writings had me hold on for dear life.

There have been other tests to my faith since then, but over time I learned I learned the history of the Baha'i Faith, I read other Baha'i Writings that made a lot of sense, I still had that sense that these were the Words of God. Whenever I had a test to my faith I looked deeply into the Writings to resolve them and also reasoned them out.

Today I finally realize that whatever questions remain, whatever inconsistences seem to be there, they are overwhelmed by the evidence that is there. Why just look at just those few questions, when there is an ocean of evidence that says this faith is the real thing.

 

[F1fan]

It's your choice, even if I do not consider it a wise one.

It's not a choice since there is no evidence that allows a rational thinker to have the option. And of course you don't consider it wise, because you need to believe.

 

[Truthseeker]

Our egos are a part of us, and we need them. But we do have to learn to reign them in if we want to learn much of anything else. Especially from each other. I try to keep the conversations going until it becomes apparent to me that the other person is completely lost to their 'auto-defense' mode (ego). At that point they are not reading my post to understand them, but only to negate them. It's a waste of time and energy. And I have to be careful not to fall into that behavior, myself.

What I like about this venue is that it's all just words on a screen. It's very easy for me to 'forgive and forget' the moment the messages change. I feel no resentment against anyone about anything they write.

As to the last paragraph, I used to get angry whenever someone said something I thought ridiculous. After a while I have gotten used to "ridiculous", and realized I was angry because of my sense of superiority. Exchanges with people with different points of view has a way of improving my sense of superiority.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are skilled thinkers and unskilled thinkers. Your posts indicate you are the latter.

To whom do they indicate that? Do you believe you are a skilled thinker? If so, I cannot believe anyone could be that arrogant. It boggles my imagination, no less to say it on a public forum.

I am skilled enough to see that you keep committing the logical fallacy called argument from ignorance, but that does not require that much skill, it only requires a basic knowledge of logical fallacies.

The rules of logic apply to any true claim. And the logical default for claims are that they are false, and must be demonstrated true. But yes, religious claims can't be demonstrated true, thus are rejected.

Rules of logic do not apply to religious beliefs since religious beliefs can never be proven true or false. You can reject the beliefs if you want to but the logical default is NOT that beliefs are false because they cannot be proven true. That is a logical fallacy as I already pointed out last night.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

When did I ever say there were facts of the supernatural or God existing? However, logically speaking that does not prove that the supernatural and God do not exist, it just mean they cannot be proven to exist as a FACT.

You claimed to KNOW God exists numerous times.

You are right, I said I know, but I do not know because it was proven as a fact; any logical person would know that God can never be proven as a fact.

We don't care what you believe. We only care that you can provide sound and valid evidence for your religious claims, and provide a coherent argument.

Been there, done that.

It's you responsibility to present evidence for your claims. If you fail, then we reject your claims by default.

Why is it MY responsibility? Reject whatever you want to reject; why would you EVER think I care what you or anyone else rejects?

We know your evidence is bad but good enough for you. You know your evidence isn't good enough for us. So why do you keep repeating this?

I only repeat it because you keep asking for evidence. Why do you keep asking me for evidence over and over and over again after I already told you what I have? That would be like the holdup guy asking me for more money after I have already given him all the money I have.

Just above you said "I know what I am able to know about God and God's Will for me".

Yet you admit these religious beliefs can't be proven, so none of it can be knowledge.

It is knowledge by definition. Not all knowledge can be proven and proof is not a requirement on order for it to be knowledge.

Definition of knowledge

1a(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding answered to the best of my knowledge

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

Sure it does. You admit your evidence is good enough for you while understanding it is weak for objective minds. The only way you could prove something and it NOT be confirmation bias is if your evidence convinces others too.

I never said that my evidence is good enough for me while it is weak for objective minds. You said that.

It's obvious you have a dependency on this posting you do. You repeat a lot of mistakes that have been exposed as mistakes.

I just answer posts like the customer service rep, in the order that they were received.

The only thing that has been exposed is how arrogant some atheists are. That is exposed every time they refer to themselves a skilled thinkers. It is all laid out on the table for all to see.

See how you try to switch the focus onto atheists? There must be something you're trying to hide from.

Why shouldn’t I switch the focus to atheists? Why should the focus always be on me? People are probably getting really bored listening to atheists talking about me all the time.

All I can see is SEE how you try to switch the focus onto me instead of looking at yourself, day and night, and everyone else can see it too, because it is as clear as the noonday sun in Arizona. There must be something you're trying to hide from, maybe yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

They don't.

I said "Rational minds would know that there can never be proof of God's existence so they would never expect proof."

You said: "They don't. " But that is not true because atheists do keep asking for proof that God exists.

Yet theists keep acting as if they know God exists.

No doubt theists believe their version of God exists but they shouldn't be confident about it.

Why shouldn't we be confident about our version of God, when it is the only version that makes logical sense to us?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you don't know.

I do know, because I am aware of the truth of and convinced or certain of what I believe.
That is how I know.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not a choice since there is no evidence that allows a rational thinker to have the option. And of course you don't consider it wise, because you need to believe.

Who are you to tell me what I need? You have no idea what I need.

I need to believe in God like I need a hole in the head so you are dead wrong about me. I tried to be an atheist but there was too much evidence that God exists.

A rational thinker has no choice except to believe in God given all the evidence for God's existence.

 

[HonestJoe]

Why are you bringing logic into this discussion? Logic does not apply to religious beliefs because they can never be proven to be either true or false.

You brought in logic when you claimed to have evidence. You have now pretty much confirmed my growing suspicion that was a complete lie (though it is possible that you somehow believe this, either way it renders any discussion meaningless). You have faith which you are trying to give more credit than it deserves by bringing in terms of evidence and logic without actually having any. You have eradicated any remaining credibility you had and we're done.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

atheists are talking about the God they do not believe in all the time.

I don't think atheists are actually asking theists about gods. They're asking why theist who are explaining their beliefs why they believe them and why they don't.

You and I have exchanged thousands of words over a few years, and I've never asked you about the God you believe in. I don't know if you believe your God is a trinity, came to earth as Jesus, created the earth a few thousand years ago or billions of years ago, lives in heaven, is surrounded by angels, sends souls to hell, etc., because what you believe (your theology) isn't important to an unbeliever, but why you believe it.

The reason I enjoy this activity is because I like to exercise my mind. The discussion doesn't need to be about religion at all. Any faith based thinking will do. It can be politics (election hoax) or vaccines as well.

Why? Apart from enjoying writing, constructing argument, identifying logical fallacies, and reading the opinions of other secular humanists, I find value surveying the spectrum of types we find here on RF. I notice how faith-based thinkers vary from those that I can't find any difference in their thinking and mine apart from the fact that they claim to be theists.

On the other extreme, we find people so affected by their religious beliefs that they think and behave nothing like the secular humanists. I look at the relative number of types along that spectrum to see the effect that their religion has on them compared to those living outside of religion. I can compare the thinking of the Abrahamics and the dharmics. I can compare liberal Catholics to conservative, fundamentalist Protestants. I get to see how these all vary from those calling themselves pagans or on the left-hand path. And much of this is done through question and answer. I've found the thinking of the dharmics and Satanists surprisingly compatible with my own. I don't get this type of education or interaction with believers anywhere else.

It's really nothing like what many theists claim - that unbelievers who query them have a nagging hunch that there is a God, and are either drawn to the religious because of this, or else are rebellious and immoral hedonists trying to escape accountability. I'm reminded of a scene in the movie Poltergeist, where a young girl is being told that the collection of ghosts haunting them are drawn to the light of her purity and goodness, ever wandering aimlessly in despair, searching for what they know not. I think that's how many theists like to see unbelievers who are asking them questions. But I'm not really interested in the particulars of their beliefs, just how their beliefs affect them.

So now you know why I'm here, and I presume many others as well. It's not to talk about gods.

I still stand my ground in saying that the Baha'i Faith moral code is compatible with reason, empathy, and benevolence.

OK. I don't know what you are taught, so I'll just accept your claim. You seem like a decent and caring person to me.

My point was that one doesn't need to consult a holy book for moral guidance, that those whose moral codes are derived from the combination of reason and empathy are at the cutting edge of issues involving human rights, justice, improving the quality of life for as many as possible, environmental concerns including global warming, and the like.

Some of the religious might also hold most of those values. You might. But many do not. In the States, 81% of white evangelicals voted for Trump, a seriously morally challenged person. That's incompatible with my values, and frankly, is an abomination.

all religions are not the same and they are not all like Christianity.

Agreed. As I said, I'm interested in surveying the various types of faith-based thinkers to get a better sense of how this affects them. Incidentally, I like your religion best among the Abrahamic choices. I've only seen one Baha'i on RF that was an intellectual and moral failure. They don't tend to make the same mistakes in science that I see so often from other theists I see arguing here, and their demeanor is almost always friendly, reasonable, and unemotional. I have yet to decide if that's more because of what they are taught or more because of what they are not taught. I haven't seen any, for example, bemoaning same sex marriage or calling climate change or vaccines a hoax.

I tend to think it's the latter, that Baha'is are subjected to less less religious indoctrination than most, allowing them to develop using reason and compassion more so than in some other religions. I'm seeing that a strong moral compass doesn't come from religion, but from lack of religion. But I might be wrong about that. I tend to think that way because I admire just about all of the secular humanists, and see that as being the result of not submitting to any religion at all.

Those are the kinds of things that make me anti-theist, and the feelings are not directed at the theists themselves, or all forms of theism. Just the organized, politicized forms of religion that turn people against reason and science, or make them homophobic or atheophobic, or want to impose their religious beliefs on a secular society, or get a walk regarding paying taxes. Such people have done considerable harm to America (the Canadians and Europeans seem to have mostly avoided this mess with religion that plagues America).

Those are my principle objections, not to theism or theists per se, but to how organized, zealous religion does damage to America in particular, and why I cheer its waning hegemony as judged by the trending in several religious self-identification polls done over the last several decades. I don't have any problem with either you or your faith. It's not for me, and it seems to serve some constructive purpose in you. You may have noticed that I've never tried to talk you out of it, either.

 

[F1fan]

I do know, because I am aware of the truth of and convinced or certain of what I believe.
That is how I know.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

Given what it is you think you know, it's apparent you are treating belief as knowledge in an effort to better solidify a weak basis for belief.

 

[F1fan]

Who are you to tell me what I need? You have no idea what I need.

Yes we do. You express a strong need to believe what you do, and do so over and over and over.

I need to believe in God like I need a hole in the head so you are dead wrong about me. I tried to be an atheist but there was too much evidence that God exists.

This is an odd statement. There are strong biological and cultural pressures to believe in religious concepts. Perhaps you aren't self-aware of your needs.

A rational thinker has no choice except to believe in God given all the evidence for God's existence.

You are correct, but you can't present the required level of evidence, so we reject your claims/beliefs by default.

 

[F1fan]

When did I ever say there were facts of the supernatural or God existing? However, logically speaking that does not prove that the supernatural and God do not exist, it just mean they cannot be proven to exist as a FACT.

Facts are what non-believers are asking for. That you have none means it is useless for you to post your beliefs and claims.

You are right, I said I know, but I do not know because it was proven as a fact; any logical person would know that God can never be proven as a fact.

Then it's not knowledge, it's belief, and poorly supported belief.

I only repeat it because you keep asking for evidence. Why do you keep asking me for evidence over and over and over again after I already told you what I have? That would be like the holdup guy asking me for more money after I have already given him all the money I have.

I haven't asked for evidence in recent posts. I only reference your failure to present adequate evidence that meets the required level of those interested in what is true.

I never said that my evidence is good enough for me while it is weak for objective minds. You said that.

You said your evidence is good enough for you. We said your evidence isn't good for us.

Why shouldn’t I switch the focus to atheists? Why should the focus always be on me?

Because you are posting claims, and others are asking you questions about it.

 

[PureX]

I have to go by results. I'm satisfied with the results of having trusted my judgment since making the change in how I decide what is true. And that judgment includes knowing when to defer to the judgment of others and when not to.

Most everyone will think and say that no matter how wrong they are about how many things, or how negatively it effects them. It's called "believing in" ourselves, and has very little bearing on how well we actually grasp the truth of what it. I'm not saying we can or should avoid it, but I do think it's very important to be aware of this.

I tend to trust my judgment as I've just explained. And I think I have good reason to do so. I'm satisfied with the results. If I had had the results of the guy in the video, I might have cause to go to others for advice on basic life decisions.

That's reasonable. But trust does not negate skepticism. I 'trust in God' because I find that it works for me, but that does not mean I am not skeptical. And it also does not mean that I pursue divine signs and messages. My trust in God is more like; after I've done all I can, I relax and leave the outcome in God's hands.

What bias? Trusting my own judgment? I consider the reason I gave you for that logical.

ALL judgment is biased. Because it's all limited, subjective, and based on an incomplete information set. I understand that sooner or later we will have to decide, and to act. But trust does not negate skepticism, even, and maybe especially, about ourselves.

Many people use the word bias to imply an error of thought. For me, that's only irrational biases, such as superstitions and bigotry. Biases grounded in understanding experience are rational biases, and they are quite desirable if accurate. It's really another name for learning. I try each of two restaurants a couple of times and learn empirically that I'll likely have a better experience at one than the other if there is a noticeable difference between them, whether that be food, service, ambiance, prices, or some combination of these. That's a bias in favor of one over the other, it is rational, and it is useful information in the sense that it empowers me to make decisions with better outcomes more often.

But that is the very definition of 'confirmation bias'.

I've told you that I define believing in as believing by faith. What I do is believe based on evidence, not believe in.

What you "believe in" (refuse to doubt) is the validity of what you deem to be 'evidence'. You're trying to make it sound very 'objective', when it's really not. And I'm not trying to disparage the process. But I am trying to point out that it's prone to bias, error, and irrationality the same as anyone else's process is.

On that basis, I might believe that restaurant A will meet my needs better than restaurant B. I believe restaurant A is better. I do not believe in it.

But restaurant A is not better "because it meets your needs". As your needs do not define the value of the restaurant. See how easily bias and irrationality crept into that process and caused a false conclusion? You are OK with the conclusion, because it serves you. But the conclusion is nevertheless false.

I do consider empiricism the only path to reliable knowledge about how the world works and what I can expect the result of various choices I might make to be. I'm not aware of any other method that can produce useful information. Nor any other method of coming to belief except faith, or insufficiently justified belief. To the extent that the evidence supports one's belief, it is a rational belief. Any more than that becomes faith.

It's all applied faith, really. It's our only means of moving forward. I just think we'd do better being more honest with ourselves about it.

And I don't understand what you mean about other methods of determination that use evidence to arrive at useful conclusions.

You just defined the other methods out of consideration, though, didn't you. Intuition, for example, is an exceptionally powerful tool available to we humans for determining the truth of things, and with reach that surpasses empiricism. Many of mankind's greatest advances have been the result of applying faith to intuition. It's certainly true in the fields of art and medicine. And factors heavily on the theoretical side of the physical sciences.

It's been a problem for me exchanging posts with you that you prefer not to state clearly what you mean by various terms. I still don't know what you mean by God, but you know what I mean (a conscious agent capable of creating a universe). I still don't know what you mean by believing in, but you know what I mean when I use the term (unjustified belief, distinct from believing). I'm still not clear on what your definition of an atheist is, but you know mine very clearly (anybody that does not hold a god belief). I'm not clear on what you mean by oracle or holy spirit. Maybe it's the common meaning, maybe not.

By "God" I mean the great mystery source, sustenance and purpose of all that is.

By "believing" I mean presuming, without doubt, that one's idea of what is, IS what is.

By "faith" I mean trusting that the idea of 'what is' that we hope to be true, will turn out to be true, even though we understand that it may not. (And then being willing to act on that hope.)

And an atheist is someone who asserts philosophical atheism. That is someone who asserts as truth the counter-claim that no gods exist.

The word (God) connotes something to many people that I don't mean. I've mentioned the confusion Einstein caused using the word to mean the laws of nature.

Clarity matters. I would try to use the words that best convey what I mean. I would not refer to the "laws of nature" as "God" because even though God may be responsible for the laws of nature, and the laws of nature are an expression of God, the laws of nature are not, in themselves, God.

I'd be curious to know what those things are and how they helped you. Religious ideas simply haven't been helpful to me. I discussed this today on another thread, the bottom part of this one: Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

Religious practices like confession, forgiveness, gratitude, honesty, amends, moderation, meditation, tithing, and so on are good for anyone, religious or not. Also, religious ideals like honesty, humility, kindness, generosity, agape, and so on are also good for anyone to strive for religious or not. For me, seeing the 'divine' within the human has been an important concept that I gained from religion. I'm kind of surprised that you wouldn't have come to appreciate any of these.