Why There is Probably No God

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, thanks for explaining that. The two are not always conflated but there are some atheists who tell me all I have is a belief and they also tell me my god does not exist.

Okay, if they tell you that your god does not exist that puts a burden of proof upon them. If they claim that all that you have is belief that is an observation based upon your inability to demonstrate something other than belief. It is a conditional statement that is supported by your lack of action to the contrary.

 

[Trailblazer]

And once again a theist displays an ignorance of reliable evidence.

If your god plays hide and seek that is an immoral god.

Obviously God does not want to make the evidence so reliable that everyone recognizes it without having to put forth any effort. That is not immoral at all, it is just and fair, because only those who are willing to do the work and make the necessary sacrifices of time and effort will get through the narrow gate. This is how God separates the wheat from the tares, as Jesus said. Letting everyone through the narrow gate regardless of effort exerted is unjust because it is unfair to those who put forth the effort. Does everyone deserve a PhD in Physics just because they want one?

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, if they tell you that your god does not exist that puts a burden of proof upon them.

They have reasons to think that god does not exist just as I have reasons to believe that God exists. Neither one of us can prove that god exists so why argue about it?

If they claim that all that you have is belief that is an observation based upon your inability to demonstrate something other than belief. It is a conditional statement that is supported by your lack of action to the contrary.

True, I cannot prove God exists, so it is a belief. It will always be a belief because nobody can prove God exists, except to themselves, and in that case it is a belief one knows is true. But it cannot be proven to anyone else because the knowing is an inner sense of knowing, not knowing through facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously God does not want to make the evidence so reliable that everyone recognizes it without having to put forth any effort. That is not immoral at all, it is just and fair, because only those who are willing to do the work and make the necessary sacrifices of time and effort will get through the narrow gate. This is how God separates the wheat from the tares, as Jesus said. Letting everyone through the narrow gate regardless of effort exerted is unjust because it is unfair to those who put forth the effort. Does everyone deserve a PhD in Physics just because they want one?

It is since there are many that will never see the "evidence"

A god that plays hide and seek is always immoral unless everyone gets the same "reward" regardless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They have reasons to think that god does not exist just as I have reasons to believe that God exists. Neither one of us can prove that god exists so why argue about it?

True, I cannot prove God exists, so it is a belief. It will always be a belief because nobody can prove God exists, except to themselves, and in that case it is a belief one knows is true. But it cannot be proven to anyone else because the knowing is an inner sense of knowing, not knowing through facts.

So not really "knowing" then.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is since there are many that will never see the "evidence"

Those people who never heard of Baha'u'llah are not held accountable. That is fair.

A god that plays hide and seek is always immoral unless everyone gets the same "reward" regardless.

That is utterly ridiculous. Why should everyone get the same reward if they did nothing to earn that reward?

Should everyone get an MD even if they never went to medical school? Why should belief in God be any different? Give me one good reason why anyone should get a free ride?

 

[Trailblazer]

So not really "knowing" then.

I really know but not in the way you need to know.
People are all different in their requirements.

 

[lukethethird]

Obviously God does not want to make the evidence so reliable that everyone recognizes it without having to put forth any effort. That is not immoral at all, it is just and fair, because only those who are willing to do the work and make the necessary sacrifices of time and effort will get through the narrow gate. This is how God separates the wheat from the tares, as Jesus said. Letting everyone through the narrow gate regardless of effort exerted is unjust because it is unfair to those who put forth the effort. Does everyone deserve a PhD in Physics just because they want one?

So, for all your efforts you got yourself a belief in God?

 

[Trailblazer]

So, for all your efforts you got yourself a belief in God?

I did not put forth a lot of effort to get my belief in God but I have had to put forth a lot of effort to maintain my belief in God. Some of us have more problems on the front end and some have more on the back end.

 

[lukethethird]

I did not put forth a lot of effort to get my belief in God but I have had to put forth a lot of effort to maintain my belief in God. Some of us have more problems on the front end and some have more on the back end.

So either way it is a problem.

 

[Trailblazer]

So either way it is a problem.

I would not say it is a problem, only that we can have problems along the way.
New cars have no problems when new but eventually they require maintenance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those people who never heard of Baha'u'llah are not held accountable. That is fair.

That is utterly ridiculous. Why should everyone get the same reward if they did nothing to earn that reward?

Should everyone get an MD even if they never went to medical school? Why should belief in God be any different? Give me one good reason why anyone should get a free ride?

One would need a lot more than to Just hear of Babalooey to be fair.

Your analogies need a ton of work.

 

[Trailblazer]

One would need a lot more than to Just hear of Babalooey to be fair.

That is the best proof of God .
Once they hear they can investigate. That is fair.

Your analogies need a ton of work.

I see nothing wrong with them but if you do you need to explain why they need work.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

so science is wrong.....

there can be an effect without a cause

Science doesn't say that there can't be an effect without a cause.

 

[Thief]

Science doesn't say that there can't be an effect without a cause.

all experimentation requires the relationship

 

[Valjean]

I do not have mystical experiences and I do not consider those evidence of anything. It is only evidence to the person who had the experience.

The evidence for my religious beliefs are examinable and tangible.

But if they were so, wouldn't they be commonly accepted, like the tangible evidence of germ theory or relativity?

These disciplines cannot set the standards for religious evidence. None of them would not even make such a claim. Religious evidence is not testable or reproducible.

Then, as you stated above, it's "only evidence to the person who had the experience," not evidence in the usual, empirical sense of the word.

God's Reality as represented by religious truth simply exists and it is not personal. We either discover Reality or fail to do so. God's Reality cannot be proven like a science experiment.

Religious truths cannot be evidenced by everyone because they cannot be proven. We can only prove them to ourselves.

So is there empirical evidence or not?
This is why skeptics continue to question the intangible theology of the believers. If it exists only in your own psyche I don't understand why so many religious are so militant in its defense. If it's fact-based and testable I don't understand why it's not generally accepted.

so science is wrong.....

there can be an effect without a cause

But modern physics hasn't ruled out effect without cause. All effects must have a cause is no longer scientific dogma.

 

[Valjean]

Obviously God does not want to make the evidence so reliable that everyone recognizes it without having to put forth any effort. That is not immoral at all, it is just and fair, because only those who are willing to do the work and make the necessary sacrifices of time and effort will get through the narrow gate. This is how God separates the wheat from the tares, as Jesus said. Letting everyone through the narrow gate regardless of effort exerted is unjust because it is unfair to those who put forth the effort. Does everyone deserve a PhD in Physics just because they want one?

But everyone who pursues a degree in physics learns the same facts and comes away with the same basic view of how the world works -- except at the cutting edge of theoretical metaphysics.
Those who pursue religious knowledge, on the other hand, have no universal canon, and come away with widely varying opinions.
This leaves me skeptical of your facts, evidence, methodology and conclusions.

 

[Thief]

But modern physics hasn't ruled out effect without cause. All effects must have a cause is no longer scientific dogma.

are you sure?

without the repeatable experiment......
science is just a new set of dogmatic beliefs

 

[Trailblazer]

But if they were so, wouldn't they be commonly accepted, like the tangible evidence of germ theory or relativity?

No, because everyone interprets what they examine differently. Also, religious beliefs cannot be proven like the germ theory.

Then, as you stated above, it's "only evidence to the person who had the experience," not evidence in the usual, empirical sense of the word.

It is only evidence to whom it indicates that the beliefs are true only to the one who experiences the evidence as evidence.

So is there empirical evidence or not?
This is why skeptics continue to question the intangible theology of the believers. If it exists only in your own psyche I don't understand why so many religious are so militant in its defense. If it's fact-based and testable I don't understand why it's not generally accepted.

It is not empirical evidence and it is not testable but it is fact-based because there are facts about Baha’u’llah and His life and mission and the history of the Baha’i Faith that we can research. It is also a fact that He wrote scriptures and that is verifiable.

It is not generally accepted because everyone interprets the evidence differently since no two humans think alike. Most people do not recognize the evidence for what it is because most people have a bias and they are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the *new religion* and the *new messenger.* If they are atheists they do not like the *idea* of messengers of God or they think they are all phonies. There are all kinds of reasons people view the same evidence differently.

 

[Trailblazer]

But everyone who pursues a degree in physics learns the same facts and comes away with the same basic view of how the world works -- except at the cutting edge of theoretical metaphysics.

And everyone who researches the Baha'i Faith in earnest learns the same facts and comes away with the same basic view of how the world works. Do you understand the parallel?

Those who pursue religious knowledge, on the other hand, have no universal canon, and come away with widely varying opinions.

Yes, they do come away with widely varying opinions if they look at all kinds of different religions, since all religions have different beliefs and different scriptures.

This leaves me skeptical of your facts, evidence, methodology and conclusions.

The facts and evidence are what they are for every different religion. The methodology for determining which one is true is called independent investigation of truth in the Baha'i Faith. That means we each investigate the truth for ourselves rather than just believing what others say. From that investigation of the facts and evidence we reach our conclusions, not unlike any other research endeavor.