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

[Sheldon]

I clicked on the link. It does not say especially one without proof on the link.

Is that a claim or a belief? Do you believe that claim? Or are you claiming to believe it?

It says what I quoted in the link when I follow it, that's where I quoted it from. You were the one who said you couldn't prove your belief? That was the context in which that link was offered.

So I'm not seeing the point here? Beyond you claiming the link offers a clipped definition when you follow it?

Even in your version it still says an acceptance that something is true, so if you assert a belief you are claiming something is true. Something that you already asserted you can't prove yourself.

 

[We Never Know]

That's not what was in my link,

https://www.google.com/search?q=bel...9i57j69i59l3j69i60l3&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

or in the different reference you gave above.

BELIEF | Meaning & Definition for UK English | Lexico.com

So again I'm not seeing your point here?

(knock, knock, knock) "Penny?"
(knock, knock, knock) "Penny?"
(knock, knock, knock) "Penny?"

 

[Sheldon]

If atheists want to know if a deity exists then it is their job to look for the evidence for the deity.

That's what they're doing, asking the people who claim such evidence exists. I've never seen any objective evidence though. Only bare claims, like the ones you keep making.

 

[Sheldon]

(knock, knock, knock) "Penny?"
(knock, knock, knock) "Penny?"
(knock, knock, knock) "Penny?"

It's a fantastic series to be sure, and Jim Parsons was phenomenal in it, as were the rest of the cast of course.

 

[joelr]

This is how you understood it, and that is fine.

I understand it that way because it’s what the words mean. Changing words to make a god messenger correct is pure confirmation bias.

 

[joelr]

What a pure waste of time.

All the best to all people.

Over and out.

Yeah speaking up for logical thinking and empirical evidence is such a waste. Meanwhile millions of US citizens fall for conspiracies like voting fraud, flat earth and Trump is going to save the world. Things that some critical thinking skills could easily solve. But no, let’s throw away that skill set and teach everyone to just believe stuff that makes them feel tingly. Let’s make sure the next generation is primed to be brainwashed into the next radicalized cult. Some might end up in Baha’i and some might go a more radical direction. Or maybe another god messenger will revamp the religion and it won’t be so moderate?

 

[joelr]

I guess you like to provide free advertising for the Baha'i Faith by asking me to post the evidence over and over again, after I have already posted it, but no matter since it is a simple copy/paste from my Word document.

Below is a list of the primary categories of evidence that support the claims of Baha'u'llah.

1. His character (His qualities).

That can be determined by reading about Him in books such as the following:
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

2. His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth, i,e., the history of the Baha'i Faith).

That can be determined by reading about His mission in books such as the following:
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

3. His Writings which can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

4. Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies that refer to the return of Christ and the promised Messiah. That proves to me He was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book:
William Sears, Thief in the Night

5. Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

I do not ASSERT that a deity exists because I could never prove it.... all I have is evidence that indicates it.

His character contains nothing that demonstrates he was getting messages from a god.
His accomplishments are not greater than that of other popular religious figures. All the others were just people or myths and this is no exception.
He did not fulfill anyBiblical prophecies. These prophecies have been discussed and are vague and nothing like what scripture predicts. Have you read Revelations?
His writings are incredibly vague, flowery, repetitive and full of religious syncretism. None of that even suggests he is actually a god messenger any more than Abraham-Hicks or Bashar.
He did not make any clear predictions. They were vague predictions that were mapped onto events after the fact.
There are also millions of people who believe Abraham-Hicks, Bashar, Seth/ Jane Roberts, the lady from What the Bleep and many other modern religious/new age figures. People think their writings and prophecies prove they are who they claim to be. Yet they are all fraud. The evidence for Baha’i is no better.
You claim there is too much evidence for one thread yet not one piece of evidence that meets any reasonable standards has been put forth in this entire thread.

Nor the last thread about this where several prophecies and other media about Baha’i was examined?

 

[rational experiences]

The human teaching. A human. Living as a human. To tell other humans.

First relative advice.

Science of old termed one of God. How to Sion God. Convert.

Technology not God was temples machines and pyramids.

Man designed. Man built. Man by mind controlled machine. Put substance to change was owned by God into machine.

Basic human science relativity.

Man not God. Man said I own God hence I will change God

Science the one human applied EXACT same status only.

Cause effects hence are a one of human notified life attacked

As man's science history owned the causes.

To teach. How dangerous it was to change earths natural holy one place as a natural body in the cosmos

The teaching

Hence in a no science practice God the stone nuclear proved how why it destroyed life on earth.

As a planet.
Changed water pressures owned by ice mass.
Changed gas mass in heavens.
Return of God stone wandering star bodies.

Alight as a Satan star.
Cold as a Christ star.

A teaching.

Prophetic after Rome was attacked burnt in Nero was after zero position was already in place. Day sky voided radiation and day went dark. Life was saved from radiation fallout.

Event occurred after life had been saved the advice. Attack satanic on Rome.

Baha'i proved re attacked life about 1000 years later in the same caused attack event. Shroud Turin. Evidence time frame. That the cosmos God had attacked earth.

Same body effect of an irradiated life. Saved life reasoning was lived caused. Reason to re write update star attack in days. History. Records always kept.

Muslim who owned pyramids a long time before. Was then re pondering maths and sun nuclear theories. To rebuild Jerusalem science temple.

Baha'i tried to warn them. Jesus agreement. No man is God life was sacrificed in man's science history real.

Hence the evidence God did it to them argued. The only reason was a sacrificed man is God evidence. They previously agreed said science did it.

So he was murdered for owning scientific updated advice. Proving men in science were mind possessed by gods star advice. As theists begin cosmic zero first. With maths.

When it irradiated mind brain of man on star return man then believed in the thesis again.

Why the Russia 1900 blast is modern man in science owned proof. Consciousness changes its human healing. Man then is possessed by notification destruction.

There is a direct human conscious belief to science returned in mind memory associated to the cosmic falling star.

Which was taught as satanic maths possession. As the sun by mass bodies had attacked converted earth God.

Science theories conversions by burning gas light was not mass. Yet applies it to cold mass the warning.

You inherit the God answer returned from the cosmos. As mass converted mass of god first.

 

[joelr]

Why would the Baha'i Faith say such a thing? Because it is in the Writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha.
What is a perfectly polished mirror? A mirror that reflects the attributes of God. That is all it is. Many ordinary human beings reflect God's attributes but not perfectly.

“Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that Most Great Light. Methinks, but for the potency of that revelation, no being could ever exist. How resplendent the luminaries of knowledge that shine in an atom, and how vast the oceans of wisdom that surge within a drop! To a supreme degree is this true of man, who, among all created things, hath been invested with the robe of such gifts, and hath been singled out for the glory of such distinction. For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed. All these names and attributes are applicable to him.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 177

“And of all men, the most accomplished, the most distinguished, and the most excellent are the Manifestations of the Sun of Truth. Nay, all else besides these Manifestations, live by the operation of Their Will, and move and have their being through the outpourings of Their grace.” Gleanings, p. 179

Sounds rather rambl-y. The Vedic scriptures are far denser than this stuff. Yet those were written by people. No God magic involved.

 

[rational experiences]

Bible human maths zero cosmic maths predictions.

Would not have changed.

Evidence 2012 event proved it had changed from 0 applied calculations prediction.

Was the Baha'i owned warning.

Life should not have been attacked. They expected the Christ holy healing cooling event.

Russia 1900 return proved their maths predictions wrong. What he was teaching. 2012 event was removed.

Was what his message for humanity was taught for.

It should have ended as Jesus. There was a satanic Rome event after.

Why Rome passed human law and tried to force new teachings versus old testimonials as they witnessed the event.

No man is God.

Don't give God a name or else human DNA by causes will be removed their NEW teaching.

My name WEN DY.

YHWY. Was a man's science God question WHY. Y HOW Y. By O.

Y is before Z as two at the End.

Z 2000 by numbered realisation. A human applied studied calculus stating YES it occurred.

Old testimonials a proven study that said men of science temple pyramid had sacrificed human life was a teaching.

It was not a code to tell you how to do it again.

Man who invented maths calculus says look I embedded radiation science causes into human genesis myself

Congratulations fake man God creator inventor.

 

[joelr]

So all contexts are not science and for those contexts not science, science is not the best method we have. I agree.

See, here is how it works. You have a worldview and that contains of different behaviors. Some scientific and some not. That is the same for me. I just admit that everything I do, is not science and in some cases I can't use science.
Now that wasn't that hard.

Science is a good, but limited method that can't be used on all aspects of human life, only some.
For the other aspects I use different methods from human science(Danish definition of a form of non-hard science), philosophy, politics, everyday life and even religion. Now no one method is the best, because which is the best depends on context.
So there it is. Yes, science works, but in a limited sense and it is not the best method for all contexts.

In effect you above admitted that. Context, context, context, ...
See, it is not that hard.

The scientific method is the best method for finding truths about reality.

 

[joelr]

to show me that I have no evidence. If that is the reason they ask I

Why indeed would you keep asking for evidence as other atheists do, when you already know what theists have and know it is insufficient? As the old saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.



It all boils down to what you consider evidence. What I consider evidence is

Religious beliefs are not subject to logical proofs. I realized that a long time ago and I have told people that I am not going to make a logical argument for my beliefs since they cannot be proven true or false. That does not mean that my beliefs are not logical in the sense that my religious beliefs make logical sense, it only means that they can never be proven to be true.

The Writings of Baha'u'llah are 'part' of the evidence but the claims of Baha'u'llah are not the evidence.

Baha’u’llah’s Two Bold Claims

All of which leads us back to Baha’u’llah, who made two very bold claims. First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions:

Baha’u’llah made a second and even more challenging claim. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world – the one promised to

evidence is asked for to examine and give examples of how to apply simple critical thinking for anyone interested. There was a time I believed all sorts of fiction and had not yet been exposed to how to properly assess evidence. I also held many assumptions that I needed to learn could be challenged.
Bahas claims require evidence of which there is none. He’s claiming to be a continuation of stories that we now know are myths. He might as well have said he’s the new version of Romulus and Horus.

 

[Tiberius]

Science says light constant for formula.

Thesis only.

Light sits naturally in void vacuum. Owns clear gas burning.

Two states science said is life supported balances.

Man thinks I am safe by immaculate cannot theory about it.

But you do.

Your claim I know gas advice by the presence as the heavens. God the fusion doesn't own it.

Thesis first. I must invent it.. so you take God mass convert mass to obtain it. Yet you burn convert the stone.

Makes no sense at all science.

As you don't own any presence but man's life in natural purpose to compare anything first.

Man with God is not comparable anywhere else.

Please try harder to present your ideas in an intelligible manner. This is still meaningless gibberish.

 

[rational experiences]

Please try harder to present your ideas in an intelligible manner. This is still meaningless gibberish.

Man lives thinks and names by word use.

Just as a human thinking.

Says words he gave all meaning to is gibberish. As you have to be human to use words.

His answer is I used words to explain science. Science he says is not words it is conversions of mass. Energy.

His gibberish.

A human thinking is not a gas burning light void vacuum are you as a formula theist.

 

[Trailblazer]

if you assert a belief you are claiming something is true. Something that you already asserted you can't prove yourself.

I did not assert a belief. I said I believe it I said that I cannot prove my belief is true to anyone except myself.

Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
say means - Google Search

 

[Tiberius]

I am not claiming that I know. I am saying that I know.

Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
say means - Google Search

I can just as easily say you KNOW that Baha'i is false but you cannot claim you know that unless you can prove it. If you claimed/asserted that you KNOW you would be committing an argument from ignorance since you cannot prove that you know.

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]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Hiding behind wordplay like that is intellectually dishonest.

Okay, fair enough.

So you concede my point?

I am not concluding that it is a valid argument against Baha'i. I was just citing it as a source that is not a Baha'i source.

Irrelevant. You are still cherry picking your sources. You find the strongest arguments that support your position and the weakest arguments against your position, then claim you have looked at both sides.

Of course it is not a balanced viewpoint, it was written by Christian who believes that Jesus is the Only Way, a wolf in sheep's clothing pretending to be unbiased. It was a rather pathetic attempt but it mixes truths with falsities in an attempt to fool the unsuspecting reader. If you were not well-versed in the history you might actually believe him.

Then why did you not seek a balanced viewpoint?

That completely flew over your head. I was not referring to the existence of politics. I said that people discuss and disagree about religions (which ones are best) just as they discuss and disagree about politics (which political party is best).

In other words, people can discuss politics or religion and disagree. That has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.

Why do you make claims that I have already countered?

As I have told you that does not work in religion because we have to test and verify it for ourselves. Why would someone else's opinion be any more likely to be accurate than our own opinion, but that is not the main point. the man point is that we accountable to God for our beliefs so they have to be what we tested and verifies for ourselves.

truth does not work like that. You are just convincing yourself of your own opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's what they're doing, asking the people who claim such evidence exists. I've never seen any objective evidence though. Only bare claims, like the ones you keep making.

I said: If atheists want to know if a deity exists then it is their job to look for the evidence for the deity.

It is not my job to do other people's homework.

I did not claim anything but nevertheless I told you what the evidence is. I do not have any other evidence. You don't think my evidence is good enough so why are we still discussing this?

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, there is a big difference. A teaching of a religion is a teaching of a religion. Nobody is telling me to believe the teaching, I chose to believe the teaching.

Read this carefully. I said:
"There are claims in the Writings of Baha'u'llah and I believe they are true... So what?"

I did not say that "All of the Writings of Baha'u'llah are claims." I said "There are claims in the Writings of Baha'u'llah."
In other words, the Writings of Baha'u'llah contain claims, meaning that some of the Writings are claims. However. All of the Writings of Baha'u'llah are not claims and in fact very little if the Writings are claims.

Irrelevant. If there are any claims in his writings and you believe them, my point stands.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do you make claims that I have already countered?

Nothing has been countered except in your mind.

truth does not work like that. You are just convincing yourself of your own opinion.

You have no right to speak for me because you do not know what I did.

Happy trails.

 

[Trailblazer]

Irrelevant. If there are any claims in his writings and you believe them, my point stands.

Yes, I believe the claims in His Writings.
I do not even know what your point was and I do not care. Unlike you, I am not going to go looking at old posts just to prove I am right and you are wrong. What an utter waste of time.

Do you really think I care if your point stands? Think again. Obviously you care or you would not have pointed it out but unlike you, I have no need to be right all the time.

No discussion can be had with someone who has to be right all the time and spends all their time proving the other person is wrong. That is not a discussion and since I have no interest in a debate......

Happy trails.