Proof against the existence of God?

[Trailblazer]

Correct. If a god exists, it is detectable without having to try to be, just like everything else that exists.

I have no idea why you think that if God exists God would be detectable. God would only be detectable if God chose to be detectable, given God has all power to choose to be delectable or not.

A deity who prefers to faith to evidence

God is not insisting that anyone believe in Him. God provides evidence but no proof. Evidence is not proof so it has to be believed on faith.

I'd say that the opposite is the case. I don't know why you call your god belief evidenced and then deny that you did. It demonstrates to me that you don't understand what you're writing.

I did not deny that I called my God belief evidenced. I have consistently said it is evidenced although it is not proven.

No, if our universe were ruled by a tri-omni deity, I would expect its creatures to have no malicious thoughts.

Only if God did our thinking instead of allowing is to think freely.

Such a god would be no harder to find or believe it existed than the sun, especially one claiming it wants to be known.

God would be found only if God wanted to be found. Obviously God doesn't want to be found but that does not mean God does not exist or that God is not benevolent. There is no correlation whatsoever.

 

[Trailblazer]

When you go round cleaning the house. That's why I avoid doing it.

Me too.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that to disprove God one must also be able to give adequate and reasonable proof that the Manifestations of God were just lucky and had no invisible power assist Them.

To see it from the atheists' viewpoint.....
I believe that to prove God one must also be able to give adequate and reasonable proof that the Manifestations of God had invisible power assist Them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have no idea why you think that if God exists God would be detectable. God would only be detectable if God chose to be detectable, given God had all power to choose to be delectable or not.

God is not insisting that anyone believe in Him. God provides evidence but no proof. Evidence eis not proof so it has to be believed on faith.

I did not deny that I called my God belief evidenced. I have consistently said it is evidenced although it is not proven.

Only if God did our thinking instead of allowing is to think freely.

God would be found only if God wanted to be found. Obviously God doesn't want to be found but that does not mean God does not exist or that God is not benevolent. There is no correlation whatsoever.

Then tell us, in your own words, why you think it is that God wants belief without evidence.

Tell us, in your own words, whether belief in God has consequences, good or bad, and how, if that is the case, God could be considered "benevolent" in letting someone who doesn't believe what can't be shown suffer negative consequences.

I've no doubt you'll find this a trivial exercise.

 

[Trailblazer]

The same goes for proving God does exist.

Why would one have to know all that is in order to prove that God does exist?

 

[CG Didymus]

The only thing humanity knows about God is that certain Teachers appear from time to time, establish a new religion and culture and claimed They were sent by God.

But that is the Baha'i belief. Again, nowhere does Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses claim that God sent them. Then it's very probable that Buddha didn't even mention God, especially a God like the Abrahamic God. Then with those Hindus that believe in Krishna, they believe he is an incarnation of a God. But also several others that incarnation prior to Krishna.

So, no humanity doesn't know anything certain about God and any teachers that were sent by God. It's possible, but all we really know is that is what Baha'is believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

7. In conclusion, it is perfectly feasible for all humans to have natures that exhibited the same level of moral behavior as the best of us that exist now, and still retain free will.

Thus, in this imaginary world, natural evil (tornadoes and lightning strikes and diseases) would still exist, but human caused evil would be reduced to mistakes. A benevolent God could have done that, without sacrificing free will.

How do you think it is perfectly feasible for all humans to have natures that would exhibit the same level of moral behavior as the best of us that exist now?
How could a benevolent God could have done that?
Please don't say "God is omnipotent so God can do anything" because that is irrelevant.

(Never mind the free will, put it on the back burner for the time being.)

 

[Trailblazer]

As I do.

But would you feel the same if it was a jury trying someone you love, who say to you, "we don't need a proof, we've just decided to believe he's guilty."

You don't need proof if you have decided that God is not guilty of existing.
You only need proof if you want to know if God is guilty of existing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You don't need proof if you have decided that God is not guilty of existing.
You only need proof if you want to know if God is guilty of existing.

And why didn't you answer my post 164?

 

[Truthseeker]

"One part was that time didn't exist befire the Big Bang"

Something existed or everything came from something that didn't exist. .

Personally, I have the opinion that something has always existed, whether it is something from which the Big Bang sprang, or other Universes. None of my opinion can be verified by science.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then tell us, in your own words, why you think it is that God wants belief without evidence.

God does not want belief without evidence, God wants belief without proof.

Tell us, in your own words, whether belief in God has consequences, good or bad, and how, if that is the case, God could be considered "benevolent" in letting someone who doesn't believe what can't be shown suffer negative consequences.

I can only give you my personal opinion based upon what I have read in Baha'i scriptures.
I think that belief in God has positive consequences but that does not mean that nonbelievers will 'necessarily' suffer negative consequences.

However, I believe there are certain rewards for belief that the nonbeliever will forfeit and this will not be known until that person crosses over to the next world (in the afterlife). If there was no afterlife then that nonbeliever would probably never know what he missed out on by not believing.

I've no doubt you'll find this a trivial exercise.

I don't know what you would think that. I do not consider anything you pose to me "trivia." because that is the same as trivializing your concerns, which are anything but trivial.

 

[Truthseeker]

I consider it unfair of God to keep that a secret, especially given how much suffering some people have to endure in this life.

I don't see it that way, but that's okay. That's another way your judgement has been affected by feeling. I need to accept that others feel more than I do, I need to be humble about my analytical framework. We are just different people. I am not superior to those who feel more. I accept that in theory.

 

[Trailblazer]

And why didn't you answer my post 164?

I only just got to it as you posted this.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't see it that way, but that's okay. That's another way your judgement has been affected by feeling. I need to accept that others feel more than I do, I need to be humble about my analytical framework. We are just different people. I am not superior to those who feel more. I accept that in theory.

My judgement has not been affected by feeling, it has been affected by analytical thinking and what I consider just.
Your analytical framework? What have you analyzed vs. believed? I think that your judgment has been affected by your belief framework.

It's okay though, because I don't have to rely upon God through Baha'u'llah to know more about the afterlife. There are other books.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Personally, I have the opinion that something has always existed, whether it is something from which the Big Bang sprang, or other Universes. None of my opinion can be verified by science.

At least not now, and maybe never. But the main reason I posted here was to tell you that your post about the Baha'i poet should be in General Discussion. That is the sort of action that almost everyone here would oppose and you would let more people know of this problem if it was out for everyone to comment on. I could not even give you an approving frubal where it was. You could always ask a Mod to move it for you. You might even find some Muslim support here.

 

[Truthseeker]

I am sorry Duane but you cannot know suffering is beneficial, you just believe that because it is the Baha'i party line.
You also cannot know it is compensated for in the afterlife, you just believe that.

The reason I cannot accept this is not for emotional reasons, it is for logical reasons.

It is? You do believe in Baha'u'llah don't you? That is the source of the party line:

51. O SON OF MAN!
My calamity is My providence, outwardly it is fire and vengeance, but inwardly it is light and mercy. Hasten thereunto that thou mayest become an eternal light and an immortal spirit. This is My command unto thee, do thou observe it.
(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

That doesn't seem logical to me to believe in Baha'u'llah and disbelieve what He says. You did know about this one, didn't you? There is a disconnect there.

 

[Truthseeker]

My judgement has not been affected by feeling, it has been affected by analytical thinking and what I consider just.
Your analytical framework? What have you analyzed vs. believed? I think that your judgment has been affected by your belief framework.

It's okay though, because I don't have to rely upon God through Baha'u'llah to know more about the afterlife. There are other books.

Baha'u'llah said:

The nature of the soul after death can never be described, nor is it meet and permissible to reveal its whole character to the eyes of men.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 156)

Yes, it is a belief, but it's based on reason, based on my belief in Baha'u'llah also. But I think I get it. Baha'u'llah is just delivering a message for you from God. It does not mean for you that God is fair and just in telling Baha'u'llah to say that. I've heard a similar line of reasoning from you in the past. Maybe that's changed.

 

[Magic Man]

What is the strongest or most compelling argument in your view for the non-existence of God or gods?

I'm sure this question has done the rounds on RF ad nauseum. I'm curious as to why people would be completely convinced about the non-existence of God.

The strongest argument I would put forward, is a personal one. I have never seen God and to my knowledge, nor has anyone else.

That being said I am a committed theist and the the God I believe in is an Unknowable Essence.

The most compelling evidence for the non-existence of a god first needs a definition. We're talking about theistic gods here, as in a sentient being that not only created the universe but interferes with it. This doesn't apply to deistic or pantheistic or panentheistic of other types of gods. An "unknowable essence" is not a theistic god and belief in one only makes you a theist in the broadest and most unhelpful sense of the word.

The most compelling evidence for the non-existence of a theistic god is that there is a complete lack of evidence for one coupled with the fact that we can see how the idea evolved from early humans who used spirits/gods to explain nature. Over time, humans learned more and more about nature and theistic gods were used less and less to explain things. Some theistic god-concepts continued but only because of tradition, indoctrination and humans' desire for an afterlife.

Just the idea of a creator god who is involved in the daily life of humans doesn't make sense. This universe has sextillions of stars. There are millions or billions or even trillions of planets that could be inhabited by intelligent life. Why would any of these gods care that much about humans? Why would they set out these moralities for humans to follow? Why would their prophets not inform humans of what we now know by science? Why would they not inform humans of all of the other intelligent life out there?

Most of all why would life on Earth look exactly as it would if there was no theistic god?

Again, this only applies to the most common conception of god, the theistic one like the Abrahamic one (among others). It doesn't apply to an "unknowable essence". That's so vague as to not be debatable. Defining "God" as "an unknowable essence" is part of the problem. It broadens the definition of "God" to the point that it's impossible to talk about meaningfully.

 

[loverofhumanity]

OK. Nelson Mandela. He fits the description you give of a "Great Being", don't you think? He was imprisoned for his actions. He persisted through persecution and abuse. He stood up for a righteous cause. He inspired a movement that involved many people, and succeeded in a way that has rarely been seen, a (mostly) non-violent revolution where there was every expectation that there would be a blood bath.

But he never started any religion or claimed to be a "Messenger".

As far as I know Mandela believed in God and was a Christian and was an advocate of interfaith. People like Gandhi and Plato also believed in God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The same goes for proving God does exist.

We would also need to prove that there was no God involved in the Prophets Who were tortured, exiled, imprisoned and crucified yet Their Cause lives even today in the hearts and minds of billions thousands of years after Their death. If it’s not a power born of God then what was it.

Scientifically gravity is proven whenever something is dropped but we cannot see gravity or the laws of physics. Spiritual forces are also intelligible realities that exist but their sphere of influence is minds and hearts. So when a Prophet arises we see a new religion, pattern of life, civilisation and culture born which affects humanity for thousands of years.

An example from the Bab how successive Prophets overcame opposition because of the power of God.

Scatter throughout the length and breadth of this land, and, with steadfast feet and sanctified hearts, prepare the way for His coming. Heed not your weaknesses and frailty; fix your gaze upon the invincible power of the Lord, your God, the Almighty. Has He not, in past days, caused Abraham, in spite of His seeming helplessness, to triumph over the forces of Nimrod? Has He not enabled Moses, whose staff was His only companion, to vanquish Pharaoh and his hosts? Has He not established the ascendancy of Jesus, poor and lowly as He was in the eyes of men, over the combined forces of the Jewish people? Has He not subjected the barbarous and militant tribes of Arabia to the holy and transforming discipline of Muḥammad, His Prophet? Arise in His name, put your trust wholly in Him, and be assured of ultimatevictory.’