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

[Trailblazer]

Then I doubt if the are "logical".

If something is logical it should not (though we see that is often not the case when people have an emotional belief) though we see that is all to often not true with people that have an emotional investment in a concept, such as theists. matter who is looking at it. If it only convinces you and people others that make the same errors that you do then it is probably not logical.

They are very logical but I doubt you would realize that which is why I don't bother presenting them.

I have no emotional investment in believing in God, I only believe because of the evidence. I don't even like God, so why would I want to believe in God? I do not like religion either but I am stuck with it because I believe it is true. If I followed my feelings instead of my rational mind then I would become an atheist.

To say that all theists have an emotional investment in their beliefs is the fallacy of hasty generalization.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then Baha'i can't say they believe in the "manifestations" and the Scriptures of the older religions, because Baha'is don't. They believe those older Scriptures are inaccurate, and that makes the stories about the "manifestations" in those Scriptures inaccurate.

You just committed the black and white fallacy. Just because some of the older Scriptures are inaccurate that does not mean that does not mean all of the older Scriptures are inaccurate.

The Black-or-White Fallacy is the provision of only two alternatives in an argument when there are actually more options available. ... It's also sometimes called the Gray Fallacy, between black and white options, or the middle-ground fallacy, after a middle ground between two warring camps.
black and white fallacy examples in politics - nazwa.pl

So what Baha'is believe is what the Baha'i Faith tells them to believe about those "manifestations"... not what the Scriptures of those older religions say about them.

Everything is not black or white, all or nothing. That is fallacious reasoning...

Baha'is believe some of what is in the Scriptures of older religions but not everything. We believe that whatever the Baha'i Faith says about the Manifestations of God supersedes what the older religions say because the Baha'i Scriptures are more accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I made no errors except in your own distorted perceptions. IF I had made any errors then you could tell me what they were so I could defend myself. Your accusing me without presenting any evidence is gravely unjust. Is this how any court of law would be conducted?

I did . Many times. I explained your errors to you. I got tired of endless denial.

You have nothing more than mere disbelief, how is that different from mere belief?

You atheists do not even MAKE any arguments, let alone rational arguments, because you cannot even defend your position.

What!? You have not been paying attention at all. Of course we have defended our position. Much better than you ever supported yours. But then you probably still have a false concept of what atheism is.

Who cares what a new atheist thinks of what I say? That does not prove a thing except that all atheists think alike. All my arguments are logical because they make sense given what God is but atheists cannot understand them because they have confirmation bias and are clueless about what God is.

If there were other believers who wanted to waste their time posting to atheists they would agree with me, so what would that prove? What does it prove that other atheists agree with you? Why do you keep repeating it as if it matters?

You care. You care an almost unbelievable amount. When we keep pointing out how and why you are desperate to try to show us that we are wrong. Meanwhile you keep ignoring the advice that I have given to you that would keep you from looking so bad.

No, it is not everyone, it is a few atheists. No, it is not time to question myself because a few atheists disagree with me. Do you question yourself when a boatload of Christians disagree with you? Why would it be any different?

No one else except for a couple of people that make the same errors that you do, same belief etc. So for all practical purposes that is everyone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are very logical but I doubt you would realize that which is why I don't bother presenting them.

I have no emotional investment in believing in God, I only believe because of the evidence. I don't even like God, so why would I want to believe in God? I do not like religion either but I am stuck with it because I believe it is true. If I followed my feelings instead of my rational mind then I would become an atheist.

To say that all theists have an emotional investment in their beliefs is the fallacy of hasty generalization.

I sincerely doubt that. You keep forgetting how your arguments have been refuted. After a while it is rather pointless to do so again. All that is required is to remind you that you failed.

And please, if you do not have an emotional attachment then why the frack can't you make a rational argument?

You are only fooling yourself right now.

 

[Trailblazer]

I did . Many times. I explained your errors to you. I got tired of endless denial.

No you did not. You just keep saying that you did. Saying you are tired of my denial is nothing but obfuscation.

What!? You have not been paying attention at all. Of course we have defended our position. Much better than you ever supported yours. But then you probably still have a false concept of what atheism is.

Talk is cheap. Where did you ever defend your position? Saying you do not believe in God because there is no evidence is not a defense of your position since there is evidence and you just don't LIKE the evidence.

You care. You care an almost unbelievable amount. When we keep pointing out how and why you are desperate to try to show us that we are wrong. Meanwhile you keep ignoring the advice that I have given to you that would keep you from looking so bad.

Who are you to tell me what I care about? Are you God? Only me and God know what I care about.

That is a huge big fat straw man. I could not care less what atheists think or believe.
Me desperate to show you that you are wrong? I am not trying to show you anything. I just answer posts.

That is a blatant case of Psychological projection because it is you and your atheist sidekicks who are trying to prove that I am wrong.... constantly. Do you have any self-awareness whatsoever?

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Who is the we? I don't see anyone here but you.

Keep me from looking so bad? Take a look in the mirror. It is people like you who constantly point out "what they believe" are other people's errors who look bad, would you but know it. Good people can see that but they are too polite to say anything about it.

No one else except for a couple of people that make the same errors that you do, same belief etc. So for all practical purposes that is everyone.

But you never make any errors, you are always right and you think you are right about other people, not just about their beliefs. Unlike other believers I will stand up to you because what you do is wrong by any decent standard of behavior.

Keep going and keep making yourself look bad to good people. Apparently you cannot help yourself because your ego is is out of control. You just have to be right all the time, all the time. I do not see @Tiberius or @Nimos behaving this way. Only arrogant people behave this way. Your condescending attitude is obvious to everyone except you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you did not. You just keep saying that you did. Saying you are tired of my denial is nothing but obfuscation.

Talk is cheap. Where did you ever defend your position? Saying you do not believe in God because there is no evidence is not a defense of your position since there is evidence and you just don't LIKE the evidence.

Who are you to tell me what I care about? Are you God? Only me and God know what I care about.

That is a huge big fat straw man. I could not care less what atheists think or believe.
Me desperate to show you that you are wrong? I am not trying to show you anything. I just answer posts.

That is a blatant case of Psychological projection because it is you and your atheist sidekicks who are trying to prove that I am wrong.... constantly. Do you have any self-awareness whatsoever?

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Who is the we? I don't see anyone here but you.

Keep me from looking so bad? Take a look in the mirror. It is people like you who constantly point out "what they believe" are other people's errors who look bad, would you but know it. Good people can see that but they are too polite to say anything about it.

But you never make any errors, you are always right and you think you are right about other people, not just about their beliefs. Unlike other believers I will stand up to you because what you do is wrong by any decent standard of behavior.

Keep going and keep making yourself look bad to good people. Apparently you cannot help yourself because your ego is is out of control. You just have to be right all the time, all the time. I do not see @Tiberius or @Nimos behaving this way. Only arrogant people behave this way. Your condescending attitude is obvious to everyone except you.

Oh my. There really is no point. But let me show you how you just contradicted yourself only a short time ago.

Okay?"

 

[Trailblazer]

I sincerely doubt that. You keep forgetting how your arguments have been refuted.

You have not refuted one single thing I have said, not one.

After a while it is rather pointless to do so again. All that is required is to remind you that you failed.

Why would that be required? Only you ego requires you to keep reminding me that I failed. I am sorry that you cannot see that. Everyone can see that except you. I have to be a wrong so you can be right - in your mind. This is psych 101 stuff.

And please, if you do not have an emotional attachment then why the frack can't you make a rational argument?

And please, if you do not have an emotional attachment to your position then why can't you make a rational argument?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have not refuted one single thing I have said, not one.

Why would that be required? Only you ego requires you to keep reminding me that I failed. I am sorry that you cannot see that. Everyone can see that except you. I have to be a wrong so you can be right - in your mind. This is psych 101 stuff.

And please, if you do not have an emotional attachment to your position then why can't you make a rational argument?

LOL! No, only your constant failure is what "requires" me to keep reminding you that you failed.



Your projection is truly truly epic.

And yes, you have been refuted by every atheist that has debated with you your inability to understand the refutation does not mean that it die not happen.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh my. There really is no point. But let me show you how you just contradicted yourself only a short time ago.

Okay?"

Go ahead and try if it makes you feel better.

Does it ever occur to you that you an maintain your position without criticizing other people?
Other atheists do it so why can't you?
The only reason that people knock other people down is to raise themselves up.

 

[Trailblazer]

LOL! No, only your constant failure is what "requires" me to keep reminding you that you failed.

You really can't see it can you? Only you ego requires you to keep reminding me that I failed.

And yes, you have been refuted by every atheist that has debated with you your inability to understand the refutation does not mean that it die not happen.

I have refuted many atheists that have debated with me and your inability to understand the refutation does not mean that it did not happen. Some atheists I agree with and I am not even trying to refute them. Unlike you, I do not need to be right all the time, I can learn from others.

 

[Tiberius]

Keep going and keep making yourself look bad to good people. Apparently you cannot help yourself because your ego is is out of control. You just have to be right all the time, all the time. I do not see @Tiberius or @Nimos behaving this way. Only arrogant people behave this way. Your condescending attitude is obvious to everyone except you.

I gotta agree with @Subduction Zone here. I agree with what he's said, and I do not think your claims that he is arrogant, egotistical, or condescending are particularly valid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gotta agree with @Subduction Zone here. I agree with what he's said, and I do not think your claims that he is arrogant, egotistical, or condescending are particularly valid.

Thank you. Please note, I have pointed out to her countless times how even though she has not been able to argue rationally for her beliefs that does not mean automatically that she is wrong. It only shows that what she calls evidence is not evidence. There are other ways to support one's religious beliefs.

 

[Tiberius]

Thank you. Please note, I have pointed out to her countless times how even though she has not been able to argue rationally for her beliefs that does not mean automatically that she is wrong. It only shows that what she calls evidence is not evidence. There are other ways to support one's religious beliefs.

I disagree with you that there are any rational ways to support the religious aspects of religious belief, but I agree with you otherwise.

 

[Trailblazer]

I gotta agree with @Subduction Zone here. I agree with what he's said, and I do not think your claims that he is arrogant, egotistical, or condescending are particularly valid.

Then can you explain why he keeps saying I have failed and I am in error? Do I say that about atheists just because I disagree with them?

When someone can never admit they are wrong and keeps saying it is me who is wrong what is that called?
Tell me what other believers on this forum take all the flak I take from atheists yet I still try to be polite.

 

[joelr]

But none of them met all five of the criteria I listed. Are you really going to compare a cult leader to Jesus Christ or Moses or Muhammad? There is no comparison whatsoever. These cult leaders are phonies and they are liars if they claim that God spoke to them because no God ever communicated anything to them. At best they are deluded.

Yes those things could be said about all cult leaders who gained a wide following. But that list is completely arbitrary and in no way demonstrates supernatural communication? Not one thing on the list is proof and a bunch of not-proof doesn't equal proof? In fact in the book that explains what a true messenger of God must provide - new science, new philosophy, prophecy, the science was literally WRONG? The philosophy was hippie-dippie "everyone love everyone" and was a joke compared to modern philosophers, even ancient Greek philosophers are far far richer and thought provoking. Fluffy word salads are not philosophy.
Nor are they evidence of a God.

Plus the list is a work. You started out and picked 5 things that you know happened to that "messenger" and claimed these 5 things prove it? None of those things remotely demonstrate supernatural communication and they are just 5 things that could be said of the person. Interestingly there is no mention of the content of the message? Why is not only the science given incorrect and shows a clear misunderstanding of science of the time there isn't one single mention of upcoming science? There was numerology which is known wu-wu. Then flowery praise and poetry. A prolific writer of average quality who decided to claim it was divine messages.

Same as Paul, Muhammud, Joe Smith, Ned Ludd or modern versions like Jane Roberts or Abraham;Hicks.

.

Are you really going to compare a cult leader to Jesus Christ or Moses or Muhammad?

Moses is a fictional character. The stories of Moses are also found in older Egyptian tales and legends and since the work of Thomas Thompson Moses and the Patriarchs are believed to be mythical by the entire field.
"Generally Moses is seen as a legendary figure, whilst retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses
Jesus is the Jewish version of a Hellenistic savior demigod and scores higher on the rank Ragalin mythotype scale than any other fictional character in history. Historians sometimes believe there was an actual man but the gospel narratives are complete fiction.
As historian Carrier says:

"When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib."

Jesus was created to preach new updated Judaism which combined things from cultures who recently occupied them. A message sells better when preached by someone who is speaking for God or is God.

Muhammad is a man who claimed to speak with an angel named Gabrielle. This is fiction.

The reason is because the Bible was written by unknown authors, men who never even knew the Messengers of God/prophets. Is anything in the Bible verifiable?

By contrast, the Bab and Baha'u'llah wrote their own scriptures and we have the originals.

We don't need to know the Biblical authors to know they are myths. Do you need to know Greek authors to know their demigods are myths?
We do have originals in Islam. Either way Islam and Bahai present nothing humans haven't already known. But both fail to produce clear evidence that a God decided to speak through a person. Unless the God decided to give zero new information about science, space, medicine, philosophy (all the science is actually wrong), mathematics and endless other information that could be given and instead just rambled on about peace and getting along and oh wow praise God, over and over.... It isn't even mythology, the literary construction is far below the gospel writers who understood how to craft mythology.

But if accuracy is important then what about Joeseph Smith? He got his scripture directly from Mironi? why wouldn't that be as accurate by your logic? All this really means is we know that person who claimed to be a messenger? It's a clever idea. Jane Roberts did it in the 60's and got lot's of attention. She's still selling books today. Conversations With God - that guy also cashed in on being a God messenger.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

I believe there are more possibilities than the 3 you list.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then can you explain why he keeps saying I have failed and I am in error? Do I say that about atheists just because I disagree with them?

When someone can never admit they are wrong and keeps saying it is me who is wrong what is that called?
Tell me what other believers on this forum take all the flak I take from atheists yet I still try to be polite.

Because he can see that you did fail when you tried to support your belief rationally. There is no ego in that observation. And I am sorry, but denial is never polite. You may have tried to be polite but you were not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because he can see that you did fail when you tried to support your belief rationally. There is no ego in that observation. And I am sorry, but denial is never polite. You may have tried to be polite but you were not.

Well, there are different versions of wrong, but they are all in subjective brains and different kinds of norms and/or prescriptive rules.
So even rational and non-rational are cases of subjective norms in part.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Yes, religion is not needed in order to have a life, there I am correct in all other cases.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, there are different versions of wrong, but they are all in subjective brains and different kinds of norms and/or prescriptive rules.
So even rational and non-rational are cases of subjective norms in part.

That sounds like an excuse that a person who doesn't reason rationally would use.