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

[Trailblazer]

In any case, my standard answer to that is this. If the Bible said something like:

"And the Earth moved in a great circle around the sun, held in place by the sun's mass. And the circle was not perfect, but was longer in one direction than the perpendicular, and the passage of the Earth swept out equal areas in equal times. And the sun shone with the light of its tiniest parts coming together."

I would indeed take it as evidence for God, because it describes knowledge that the people of the time could not possibly have.

So why wouldn't it be evidence for God if Baha'u'llah described knowledge that the people of His time could not possibly have had?

 

[CG Didymus]

They are objective evidence that some men claim to be Messengers from God.
At best, they are objective evidence that God exists and sends Messengers.

All you can do is look at the facts in their entirety and try to figure out what they mean.
Ask yourself, how and why would Baha'u'llah do what He did and write what He wrote?

As you know others have made similar claims. Here' one...

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad proclaimed that he was the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. He claimed to be the fulfilment of various prophecies found in world religions regarding the second coming of their founders.​

And...

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat (AMJ), as the organization is officially known, was founded in British India in 1889. Comprising roughly 12 million members from 204 countries, it is the largest organized Muslim community in the world.​

Another site had even more, but what about the Baha'i Faith? I'm sure different sites will have different numbers, but here's what this one had listed...

The Bahá'í Faith states that it currently has about 6 million members worldwide.
​

I'll bet you that we could take a look at the beliefs of the Ahmadiyyas and examine the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and we would both say those claims are false. Yet, they have more members than Baha'is? Why, in our opinion, would so many people believe those claims?

Now I'll take the side of the Atheists here. And I agree with them... Some things claimed by Baha'u'llah, I don't believe are true. Can Baha'is "prove" them to be true? Not objectively. But you and many others believe those claims anyway... Just like the Ahmadiyyas, I'm sure, have their "proof" that their founder spoke the truth. Both have "proven" it to themselves. But, they are wrong and the Baha'is right?

 

[CG Didymus]

If God sent the Messengers as evidence of His existence, then the Messengers ARE evidence of God's existence.

And some Christians say that the empty tomb is evidence that God resurrected Jesus from the dead. But... do we trust the gospel writers? All four gospels have a contradictory version of the story. So no, the gospel stories are not good evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

So questionable stories about messengers, supposedly sent by God is all we've got. Some believe those stories, some don't.

 

[rational experiences]

Human parent life records own any baby to adult life today. As memories a status is humans spirituality and any of two human experiences.

Asides from each newly born new human experience.

Human self living history conscious history owns billions of experiences.

Over consciousness owns a huge memory body and is not any God.

Egyptian men write the book of the dead sciences history. Evil.

Heard old deceased men's history not wisdom was how to use technology knowing its use destroyed life on earth.

Ask yourself a question. Why are humans in full knowledge life's attack allowed to practice life's destruction?

Has been a human question asked historic.

Moses advice was written. Involved human applied science calculus that proved men using science had caused lifes attack.

Life. Lie.
F position 6. He states 6 was used evilly. Told us all that he had.

Ignored as usual.

So as men were taught don't rebuild the temple science they did it anyway. As rich men live a lifestyle that to them is more important than life itself.

Our teaching.

Jewish Egyptian new Christian movement were angered. Old teachings were the only truth about technology.

Rich Egyptians with Roman support rebuilt it.

Why the Jesus scenario teaching about ice owning the presence fusion and not an asteroid stone was relevant.

Rome learnt their advice only after temple in Nero pyramid caused Rome to be hit by Satan asteroid fall out.

Which was not Jesus 0 zero vacuum mother space voiding end when the temple blew up.

Egyptians however controlled technology ownership. So Rome sent a ship to blow up temple in Hebrew status. And books of science were kept in library.

Why any new satanic sun theist was put in jail trying to support the re emergent teaching. Alien aware warning the emergence.

So Hebrew muslim Egyptian Christian advice owned anger against the elite who had caused another attack. Yet supported the new advice about ice. Rome included as a holy teacher.

The saviour of God.

So when next fallout came the shroud evidence kept was Baha'i reapplied the holy teaching. Forgetting that Egyptian elite had owned control God change who had not heeded either Moses teaching or Jesus teaching.

How and why the teacher was murdered re teaching the Jesus Baha'i ideal actually. From human past life memory plus a new man's experience.

As the story is all about the rich man's control as just humans.

Teaching the human truth ice newly born formed on earth as proof instant snap freeze fusion of earths body and gas only existed due to ice and space cause.

Not cold asteroid gas.

As ice could not manifest itself until earths irradiating body cooled.

Manifestation of ice proved that time shifting science caused ice only held on holy sun asteroid bodies to shift it's presence into earths body.

As if a scientist had tried to force earth off its sun cycle time track to wander as a star sun asteroid had in its natural beginning coldest state of the sun. Ice owner originally.

Was the relevant human science advice.

 

[rational experiences]

As you know others have made similar claims. Here' one...

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad proclaimed that he was the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. He claimed to be the fulfilment of various prophecies found in world religions regarding the second coming of their founders.​

And...

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat (AMJ), as the organization is officially known, was founded in British India in 1889. Comprising roughly 12 million members from 204 countries, it is the largest organized Muslim community in the world.​

Another site had even more, but what about the Baha'i Faith? I'm sure different sites will have different numbers, but here's what this one had listed...

The Bahá'í Faith states that it currently has about 6 million members worldwide.
​

I'll bet you that we could take a look at the beliefs of the Ahmadiyyas and examine the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and we would both say those claims are false. Yet, they have more members than Baha'is? Why, in our opinion, would so many people believe those claims?

Now I'll take the side of the Atheists here. And I agree with them... Some things claimed by Baha'u'llah, I don't believe are true. Can Baha'is "prove" them to be true? Not objectively. But you and many others believe those claims anyway... Just like the Ahmadiyyas, I'm sure, have their "proof" that their founder spoke the truth. Both have "proven" it to themselves. But, they are wrong and the Baha'is right?

I could claim I was a messenger just as a human but I didn't. I chose to apply scientific theism to my experience as a self study human being a human.

I had a man's human spirit recording speak directly to me stating he needed to teach me right in that moment. It was very important. But said I had to live to experience his teaching.

I accepted the advice.

I accepted not to start any new spiritual healer following as I could have. Healing for free saying pass it on the assistance to others causes humans to feel special.

So I knew I was being successful and honest and all I owned personally was my own self.

I've had a huge listing of visionary advice. I wondered how I was ever going to be accepted to be allowed to share the advice. The Baha'i forum the only place that allowed me.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is very true.

But you didn't say that. You said, "Simple, the Messengers of God are the objective evidence of God's existence."

No IF in there.

There was no IF because that post was in response to something else you said earlier.

Tiberius said: How can you claim that God objectively exists if you have no objective evidence that God exists?

It is not an IF to me because it is a simple to me that Messengers of God exist. However, the hypothetical IF/THEN statement was necessary to make my point in the post you are now responding to.

I don't know why you are bringing this up, since I never said anything that contradicts this.

I brought it up because I thought you were saying that a man claiming to be a Messenger of God could not be objective evidence of God because of what you said below, so I was trying to demonstrate how a man claiming to be a Messenger of God could actually be a Messenger of God.

Tiberius said: No they aren't objective evidence that there is a God and they are not objective evidence that God sends messengers, since people can claim that they are messengers from God even if there is no God, and even if there is a God, people can still claim they are messengers sent by him even if God never sends messengers at all.

However, we need to have some method of establishing whether a person is telling the truth or not if they claim to be a Messenger from God. After all, claiming to be a MfG is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I fully agree. That is an extraordinary claim so it requires extraordinary evidence. Now all we need to do is decide what would constitute that evidence.

You said, "All you can do is look at the facts in their entirety and try to figure out what they mean.
Ask yourself, how and why would Baha'u'llah do what He did and write what He wrote?" Making guesses as to a person's motivations and intentions is indeed speculation.

I agree, making guesses as to a person's motivations and intentions would be speculation, but that is only one thing I suggested you do. What I said before that was "All you can do is look at the facts in their entirety and try to figure out what they mean."

Okay.

So if Person A gets one result, but Persons B, C, D and E get different results, what does that say about the accuracy of Person A's result?

It says nothing about the accuracy of Person A's result, because:

Person A could be right and Persons B, C, D and E could all be wrong..... or
Person A could be wrong and Persons B, C, D and E could all be right..... or
Person A and B could be right and Persons C, D and E could all be wrong..... or
Person A and B could be wrong and Persons C, D and E could all be right.....
etc., etc., etc.

In post 2340, you said, "God objectively exists, but the purpose of religion is not to provide any objective truths about God."

You did not say, "I believe..." or anything else to indicate that your words were not a declarative statement.

That was in response to a different post so that is why I answered it differently.

Tiberius said: So, if religion isn't here to provide any objective truths, how can you possibly claim that your God objectively exists?

In my answer I was declaring "God objectively exists..."

 

[rational experiences]

Ask a human why did you claim you were a personal messenger of God?

As if I said for God instead of God they would claim I was God.

Realism time shift your thinking learnt evolved today into a past. How would a teacher living in that past be allowed to express information?

To be qualified reasoned by others to have earnt it and owned human believers?

Exact to the living historic circumstance not lived today. Living conditions.

As we supposedly evolved thinking and how to advise. With care and rationality.

Why condition never evolved?

Science thesis is all about the past.

Instead what do you do theists ....attack the messenger just a human.

Proven guilty behaviour being witnessed. Scientists who place their logic a man a machine and a theory as correct status first.

No matter what type of information they referenced bible or just theory.

How has evil existed chosen in family life? Humans.

By and because of men in science who use organisation criminally to support their choices.

How does an everyday human gain support for a family they love?

By establishing a new group as old thinking idealisms no longer worked.

My poor brother murdered umpteen times trying to fight for human rights by humans who don't believe we are right. Natural life.

Being the scientists man owned inventive owned history. Organisation only.

 

[Trailblazer]

And some Christians say that the empty tomb is evidence that God resurrected Jesus from the dead. But... do we trust the gospel writers? All four gospels have a contradictory version of the story. So no, the gospel stories are not good evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

So questionable stories about messengers, supposedly sent by God is all we've got. Some believe those stories, some don't.

Please note that was a hypothetical statement:

If God sent the Messengers as evidence of His existence, then the Messengers ARE evidence of God's existence.
That is logically valid because if the premise God sent Messengers as evidence of His existence is true, then the conclusion Messengers are evidence of God's existence has to be true.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

Now let's try that hypothetical statement on the resurrection claim:

If the tomb was empty, then that is evidence that God resurrected Jesus from the dead.
That is not logically valid because nobody can ever prove the premise that the tomb was empty and even if it could be proven that the tomb was empty that would not necessarily prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

Thus this argument falls flat on its face.

That is not even to mention that the gospel stories are not ANY evidence that Jesus rose from the dead because they (a) they contradict each other and (b) they can never be verified.

 

[rational experiences]

First of all state what entombed spirit of God means in science rather than arguing after the fact .

It means by man of science the physical mass I as yet have not personally converted leaving forcing a space emptiness.

Wisdom conversion leaves emptiness.

In scientific determined cause conversions any of.

The state God by logic. In space which owns no human biology or consciousness was a huge massive sun to earth converting of mass occurred which owns the recorded God.

Memory itself as a holographic state

God the owned state not a him he or his. Thought of only by men first.

Now place a living man theist into the picture. Living biology no hologram owner.

You got your advice from the recording. Vi is symbolic 6 Sion. Vision.

Sion he said was God. Know you said it.

Fu Sion.
Convert Sion.
Conver Sion. + Add cross gone t symbol.
FIS Sion.

H symbol in science explaining natural presence first was terrestrial magnetism.

FIS Sion I changed fish as a scientific symbolism only. Terrestrial magnetism an earth O owned natural law. It's presence.

However nature gains a huge irradiation.

Fish in water get UFO irradiated and die.

Mis use of the con contrivance sophism maths. Fish died humans burnt bush crop destroyed owner UFO fallout were starving. Eat dead fish sacrificed life as food given by the Sacrifice.

Thinking it a miracle. Yet lots of nature destroyed in multi varied attacks.

Teaching used as i.e. and je example.

∆ ^ nose point ground removed pyramid _ time shifted by minus the ground.

Sus meant nose in science symbolism of the ancients.

Human scientist is a liar.

 

[KWED]

There is no point in a believer answering that question just to be told that it doesn't count.

Some responses do not contain the required evidence or rational argument to be acceptable. The sceptic will usually explain why a given response does not amount to evidence.

Here are a few reasons why theists believe in God..
3 Arguments for the existence of God

• 3.1 Empirical arguments
  • 3.1.1 Argument from beauty
  • 3.1.2 Argument from consciousness
  • 3.1.3 Argument from design
  • 3.1.4 Rational warrant
  • 3.1.5 Inductive arguments
• 
  
• 3.2 Logical arguments
  • 3.2.1 Aquinas' Five Ways
  • 3.2.2 Cosmological argument
  • 3.2.3 Ontological argument
• 3.3 Subjective arguments
  • 3.3.1 Arguments from historical events or personages
  • 3.3.2 Arguments from testimony
    • 3.3.2.1 Arguments grounded in personal experience

• • • It is not sufficient to simply say "I have an argument". You need to explain what that argument is and how it works. Then you must address any points or questions raised in response to your arguments.

..but if a person wants to be a disbeliever,

People usually disbelieve extraordinary claims that have no supporting evidence because, well, they have no supporting evidence. The real question here is why would anyone accept such claims without evidence? It seem like it is the believer who is doing the "wanting", using confirmation bias and question begging to arrive at their desired conclusion.

they can just claim that "you can't prove it"

That's how such things work. Would you expect a court to convict someone without any evidence on only an unsupported claim? Of course not. So why is this any different?

Who cares? Belief in God is not about proof.

Indeed. It is about indoctrination, fear, self interest, wishful thinking.

Almighty God can prove it, if He wished

And yet he never does.

.. it's between a person and God.

Convenient. You'd think he'd be a bit more forthcoming when the eternal souls of billions depends on it. After all, he created mankind only to worship him, so why does he hide and misguide?

 

[KWED]

You need to give examples of what would be admissible, in your opinion.

Something that can be independently verified, ideally with testable repeatability.
What is definitely not "evidence" is anecdote or argument.

A person who dislikes "what scripture teaches" can INDEED choose to ignore it, or argue against it.

The existence of god and acceptance of ideology are two separate things. Even if a god was proved to exist, it wouldn't necessarily make them worthy of worship or respect.
And arguing that simply because they are god, then they determine what is "good" and "bad" and therefore we have no say in the matter, is moral abrogation of the worst kind. Nothing better than the Nuremberg Defence.

 

[KWED]

Simple, the Messengers of God are the objective evidence of God's existence.

So all gods who have messengers therefore necessarily exist?
Are all who claim to be "messengers of god" the genuine article, or just those belonging to your preferred version?

That is true, the objective facts do not prove He was a Messenger of God but they indicate that He was, if interpreted properly.

IOW, "There is no supporting evidence, but I want to believe it".

How do you think a religious belief can ever be verified as true? If other people did the same research I did and came to a different conclusion who can ever say that they came to the right conclusion and my conclusion was wrong? Can you see why people checking my work is not a solution?

Exactly. Religious belief is just belief. Nothing more. No religionist can claim their belief is better or truer than any others.

However, if a belief contradicts known scientific evidence, that is an indication that the belief is false.

God wants us all to do our own research and come to our own conclusions since we are all responsible for our own beliefs. Everyone will not get it right. If we are wrong we are wrong and there is no way to avoid that.

So god doesn't mind if people worship false gods or no god at all? That's reassuring, and neatly rebuts Pascal's Wager.

 

[Sheldon]

So why wouldn't it be evidence for God if Baha'u'llah described knowledge that the people of His time could not possibly have had?

Firstly that's just a speculation see the big if, secondly how would one establish it was knowledge he couldn't possibly have had? This would have to be a falsifiable idea, otherwise it would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, logically nothing is either proved nor disproved through a lack of evidence. So simply have something you can't explain, doesn't rationally mean you can assign a divine agency to it. Not knowing is not knowing.

 

[Sheldon]

If God sent the Messengers as evidence of His existence, then the Messengers ARE evidence of God's existence.
That is logically valid because if the premise God sent Messengers as evidence of His existence is true, then the conclusion Messengers are evidence of God's existence has to be true.

If it is true, however no one has yet demonstrated it is true with anything approaching objective evidence.

 

[KWED]

If God sent the Messengers as evidence of His existence, then the Messengers ARE evidence of God's existence.

Only if they can be confirmed as being sent by god, so you still have the same problem.

Sure, people could claim that they are Messengers from God even if there is no God, and even if there is a God, people could still claim they are Messengers sent by him even if God never sends messengers at all, but that has no bearing upon whether there are actually Messengers of God.

Kinda does.
If god does not send messengers, or there is no god, it means that anyone claiming to be god's messenger is delusional or dishonest.

The existence of false messengers of God does not prove that there are no true Messengers of God.

No, but if all we have are false messengers, it is unreasonable to insist that there definitely are real messengers.

That is as illogical as saying that the existence of junky cars in a junkyard is proof that there cannot be nice new cars in the car lot down the street.

It is a poor analogy because it assumes the existence of the thing you are trying to prove, so just more question begging. We already know new cards exist. We have clear, objective, verifiable evidence for them.
Also, if no one had ever seen a new car and our only experience was of old bangers, people would be naturally sceptical of claims that there exist these shiny, smooth, quiet wonders but we just have to believe it.

Of course many people claim to be Messengers of God but that does not mean that a true Messenger of God would not also claim that. Of course He would claim that because He would want people to know who He was and what His message was.

God would give his true messengers some means by which they could prove their validity. (Of course, claiming "but Jesus/Muhammad/whoever did miracles" is just more unsupported claims. There is zero evidence for any miracle.

It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because many people falsely claim to be Messengers of God, therefore there have never been any true Messengers of God.

Straw man. Not aware of anyone making that claim.

What indicates whether a man was a true Messenger a God is the evidence that backs up his claims.

And none have provided any such evidence.
Remember, a person claiming to be a messenger of god is not evidence that they were. Neither is you believing those claims.

If there is even one true Messenger then it is possible there are other true Messengers of God, since an omnipotent God can send as many Messengers as He wants to, whenever He wants to.

The highlighted bit is the part you are still failing to demonstrate. You are just assuming that there must be true messengers.

There is no other way to determine the truth except by looking at the facts and deciding what they mean. That is not speculation.

And the facts are that is no evidence that any claims "messenger of god" actually was one.
So, no evidence for god, no evidence for any true messengers. What part of that convinces you that there is a god or that a particular person was a true messenger?

 

[KWED]

So why wouldn't it be evidence for God if Baha'u'llah described knowledge that the people of His time could not possibly have had?

The problem with this argument is that it means that any accurate groundbreaking new idea, discovery or invention must be proof of god, which I'm sure you agree is nonsense.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Some responses do not contain the required evidence or rational argument to be acceptable.

I assume that none do [ as far as you're concerned ], otherwise you would be a believer?

why does he hide and misguide?

..for the same reason that God guides people.
Almighty God knows us better than we know ourselves.

 

[KWED]

I assume that none do [ as far as you're concerned ], otherwise you would be a believer?

Indeed. There is no evidence that even the supernatural exists, let alone gods, let alone a specific god as described by scripture.
On the other hand, while there is no evidence against non-specific supernatural claims, there is evidence against specific gods (or good argument at the very least, as most religionists agree).
Therefore it would be odd to accept the claims of religious scripture - unless one has been indoctrinated from childhood of course (plus the occasional case of personal trauma, psychotic episode, etc).

..for the same reason that God guides people.
Almighty God knows us better than we know ourselves.

That doesn't explain why god interferes in our ability to see the truth, favouring some and disadvantaging others. Surely he wants us all to find him, and his love, mercy and justice means that he will do everything he can to help us because the consequences for not doing so are so great (although he didn't have to make it that way - which is another thorny issue!)

But anyway, you accept the notion that our destinies are predetermined, that the outcome of all events is determined by god's decree?

 

[CG Didymus]

That is not even to mention that the gospel stories are not ANY evidence that Jesus rose from the dead because they (a) they contradict each other and (b) they can never be verified.

So what really is the Bible and the NT to Baha'is? Are you expected to believe it as "God's" gift or as something that isn't 100% authoritative or something that Baha'is are free to interpret in some metaphorical way? Sometimes Baha'is make it sound like it is totally undependable for anything. And lots of once, as I've said before, would agree with you. But they are Atheists.

If the tomb was empty, then that is evidence that God resurrected Jesus from the dead.

So the gospel writers say the tomb was empty. The story of who went to the tomb and what they saw varies. So already... Was it accurate that Jesus was put into this tomb? The stories about who came to the tomb are all different, so we can't say any of them are accurate. Plus, some have Jesus being seen alive by Mary and some have angels appearing. Do Baha'is start making the stories metaphorical at this point? I would say why not explain these variations by saying that several traditions were going about in the years prior to the gospel stories getting written.

So, you say that the empty tomb is not evidence that God raised Jesus from the dead, but that's only part of the claim... Jesus then appears to them and shows himself to be alive. The claim is that he has flesh and bone. They touch him and see the scars left by the nails. So the claims made by the gospel writers are that the apostles and other disciples saw him and are witnesses that he indeed had come back to life.

Baha'is have to make all of those stories and verses metaphorical. But they are told in the same way the rest of the story about the things Jesus said and did are told. I see no reason to suddenly make this part of the story metaphorical. Now making if fictional, a hoax, a story about Jesus with added embellishments with miraculous things in it to make him out to be a God-like, that I could believe.

Only some religious people take those stories as being literally true. With Baha'is calling them metaphorical, I think it is just as easy way for Baha'is to get away with saying they believe the Bible and the NT... but still deny some of the things in it ever really happened. And what the heck is so great about the Jesus story if he didn't rise from the dead? He's just another dead guy. What made Jesus great and a God was all these claims of the miraculous things he did, the greatest being the resurrection.

But... do we believe those claims? Other than what is written in the NT and few other books, what do we really know about those claims? Lots of us don't believe the claims. We don't believe in the God of the NT and the Hebrew Bible. We don't believe that God cursed the first humans and caused all people to be born with some kind of inherited sin or something. We don't believe that only believers in Jesus are going to some heavenly paradise and the rest are going to some eternal hell fire.

But are the claims of Baha'u'llah any better? Is the God described in the Baha'i writings more believable than the one or the ones in the other religions? If those weren't true, then why believe what Baha'is say about God? No, we can't go by what people say or write about God. Too many things have turned out to be wrong and just people making up their own versions of who God or the Gods are. So that's why there is a need for more objective and verifiable proof.

Now something we can see about religion is the way it was used to control people. Stories of Gods, angels, devils and demons were all part of those stories. They scared people into following the rules of the religion. And, with some offences, supposedly the Gods demanded the person be killed. Really? Is that what God wanted or was that what the religious leaders wanted? The power to kill those that disobeyed. And now we have the Baha'i Faith... another religion full of rules. Rules against sex, alcohol, drugs, long hair and probably rock and roll... like that's really going to work?

 

[CG Didymus]

Are all who claim to be "messengers of god" the genuine article, or just those belonging to your preferred version?

No, but even with the Baha'i "approved" messengers, those religions are still wrong. Baha'is say they all have added in traditions of men and have misinterpreted what the messenger said.

God wants us all to do our own research and come to our own conclusions since we are all responsible for our own beliefs. Everyone will not get it right.

And since all believer in all the other religions probably have some wrong beliefs and doctrines, the only one that is right is the Baha'i Faith.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad proclaimed that he was the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. He claimed to be the fulfilment of various prophecies found in world religions regarding the second coming of their founders.

Here's one person who claimed the very same things that Baha'u'llah claimed. And I'm completely sure that each has "proof" why they are right and the other is wrong. It's too easy to make religious claims and too easy to get people to believe them. Should more people be more cautious and be more thorough in their investigation? Well duh.