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

[Subduction Zone]

What is poor quality evidence to one person is good evidence to another. Whether it is good or poor is completely subjective. It would be a start if atheists could at least understand this basic concept. They can still say that the evidence does not mean anything to them because they consider it poor.

There are facts that surround the Revelation of Baha'u'llah but that is all the facts we can have. We can never have facts about God, only beliefs.

I do not assume a God exists, I believe a God exists. I do not think anyone should ever assume God exists without evidence.

Then perhaps you should try to find objective evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

One should not rely on unconvincing evidence in an argument. If that is all that one has that person is likely to be wrong.

There is no such thing as 'unconvincing evidence.'

Evidence is evidence. Whether it is convincing or not will vary by the individual. It will be convincing to some people and unconvincing to other people. This concept is so simple so I just do not understand why atheists do not understand it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What is "evidence" for you? What is your epistemology?

The only evidence that matters to me is evidence that can be verified, evidence that can be demonstrated to be true.

I don't think that God created you that way. Rather you are that way because of a combination of factors that determine your personality, factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and life circumstances. You will probably continue thinking the way you do about needing verifiable evidence unless something happens that changes the way you presently think. By learning new things people can change the way they think but it is not easy and it requires motivation and a desire to change.

God does have a desire for you to believe in Him, but on His terms, which means accepting the evidence that He provides. God does not provide verifiable evidence because God does not want to be verified they way you require that He be verified. The process of verification requires verifying that a Messenger is genuine.

You are putting the cart before the horse. You cannot understand what God is except from what the Messenger of God reveals about God as He is our only source of information about God and our only connection to God.

don't think that God created you that way. Rather you are that way because of a combination of factors that determine your personality, factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and life circumstances. You will probably continue thinking the way you do about needing verifiable evidence unless something happens that changes the way you presently think. By learning new things people can change the way they think but it is not easy and it requires motivation and a desire to change.

QuestioningMind said: ↑

It's rather odd that you asked me what evidence I would need to believe in god and then tell me that the god you believe in doesn't have any desire for me to believe in it.

God does have a desire for you to believe in Him, but on His terms, which means accepting the evidence that He provides. God does not provide verifiable evidence because God does not want to be verified they way you require that He be verified. The process of verification requires verifying that a Messenger is genuine.

QuestioningMind said: ↑

How can I possibly understand what god is when no one can provide verifiable evidence that this god being even exists?

You are putting the cart before the horse. You cannot understand what God is except from what the Messenger of God reveals about God as He is our only source of information about God and our only connection to God.


. You will probably continue thinking the way you do about needing verifiable evidence unless something happens that changes the way you presently think. By learning new things people can change the way they think but it is not easy and it requires motivation and a desire to change.


Why would I possibly want to develop the skill of being able to believe significant claims without verifiable evidence? That’s a skill that QAnon followers have honed into an artform. If you think that Trump actually won the election in 2020 you have mastered the skill of believing in significant claims without any verifiable evidence. How is any of that beneficial to anyone?

God does have a desire for you to believe in Him, but on His terms, which means accepting the evidence that He provides. God does not provide verifiable evidence because God does not want to be verified they way you require that He be verified. The process of verification requires verifying that a Messenger is genuine.

Unless your god isn't paying attention then it knows that I do require verifiable evidence. It would also know that I don't put much stock in second-hand messages. It would know that if it has an important message for me that the only way I'd have any chance of accepting it is if I receive the message directly from the sender. So if it refuses to provide verifiable evidence it exists and refuses to give me the message directly then clearly it doesn't really have a desire for me to believe in it or to get the message it has to offer.

You are putting the cart before the horse. You cannot understand what God is except from what the Messenger of God reveals about God as He is our only source of information about God and our only connection to God.

Then clearly this messenger of god is pretty bad at his job. He's done absolutely nothing to provide evidence that he is a genuine messenger from god and hasn't revealed even the slightest hint of a message to me. If this is your god's plan for getting me its message then it has failed miserably.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, evidence is not all equal. And you should remember the adage "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I don't think that you have even provided what would qualify as ordinary evidence.

I said: Evidence is evidence and all people assign different meanings to the evidence.
I never said that all evidence is equal.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I believe I have such evidence but not all people would agree because no two people are alike. Why argue about something we will never agree upon?

 

[QuestioningMind]

There is no such thing as 'unconvincing evidence.'

Evidence is evidence. Whether it is convincing or not will vary by the individual. It will be convincing to some people and unconvincing to other people. This concept is so simple so I just do not understand why atheists do not understand it.

If evidence fails to convince you of something then it is by definition unconvincing evidence. So unless you're saying that you're convinced by absolutely anything someone claims is evidence how can you state that there is no such thing as 'unconvincing evidence'?

 

[Trailblazer]

Because he doesn't exist?

Unless one has a proper understanding of what God is they are shooting in the dark.

God never comes down to earth because God is not a material being, God is spirit.
God manifests on earth in the form of a man who I refer to as a Messenger of God. That is why the Bible says the following which refers to Jesus who was a Messenger of God:

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no such thing as 'unconvincing evidence.'

Evidence is evidence. Whether it is convincing or not will vary by the individual. It will be convincing to some people and unconvincing to other people. This concept is so simple so I just do not understand why atheists do not understand it.

You can't have it both ways. What you presented is unconvincing. Therefore it is not evidence. Or there could be such a thing as unconvincing evidence. You decide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If evidence fails to convince you of something then it is by definition unconvincing evidence. So unless you're saying that you're convinced by absolutely anything someone claims is evidence how can you state that there is no such thing as 'unconvincing evidence'?

Projection. We are not convinced by absolutely anything. Theists sometimes are.

This should not be a hard concept to understand. You may be unable to understand because what you have posted is on the order of "Jimmy said so".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unless one has a proper understanding of what God is they are shooting in the dark.

God never comes down to earth because God is not a material being, God is spirit.
God manifests on earth in the form of a man who I refer to as a Messenger of God. That is why the Bible says the following which refers to Jesus who was a Messenger of God:

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Now that sounds extremely circular. Unless you understand God you cannot find him and if you don't find him you can't understand him.

I doubt if you can even properly define your God. You may give weak examples but that is not a proper definition. Have at it.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, give us an example of evidence that helps to prove something that also is not verifiable.

Facts and information are verifiable.

You cannot personally verify the facts about Baha'u'llah because he is no longer alive. You have to verify them by reading the history. You can verify the facts and information about Baha'u'llah by reading about them in books or online.

Now this suggests witness testimony, and this is the worst of all types of evidence, but is often the most relied on. Look how many rape cases there have been where a victim misidentified the rapist. Or any number of crimes where someone was misidentified. So personal experience and belief can be very much in error, especially without other witnesses.

There is witness testimony, and there was more than one witness. That is all recorded in the history of the Baha'i Faith.

It's funny you had to look all this up. And it helps my case. Verifiable means others can check the facts or evidence for authenticity. If Danny claims he saw Bigfoot, but it was dark and he had quite a few beers, would his testimony be verifiable without any other evidence?

Many years ago I had to look it up, but I did not have to look it up today because I have all these definitions saved in a Word document, have had them there for years. I hundreds of Word docs and an eidetic memory so I know exactly where everything is, so it is as simple as copy/paste. How do you think I can keep up with all these posts I get?

You can check the facts about Baha'u'llah by reading about them. You can choose to believe what you read or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wait - so now you think that God can be demonstrated by empirical evidence? A minute ago you said he couldn't be.

I did not say that God can be demonstrated by empirical evidence, I said that God leaves empirical evidence because the religions of God that the Messengers of God establish come from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

They only ask you that when you claim to have evidence either directly or indirectly.

but sometimes they ask me before I claim it.

 

[Trailblazer]

After you make fantastic claims.

I do not make the fantastic claims, Baha'u'llah made the fantastic claims. I just report what He claimed.

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:

In the East the light of [God’s] Revelation hath broken; in the West have appeared the signs of His dominion. Ponder this in your hearts, O people, and be not of those who have turned a deaf ear to the admonitions of Him Who is the Almighty, the All-Praised. Let the Breeze of God awaken you. Verily, it hath wafted over the world. Well is it with him that hath discovered the fragrance thereof and been accounted among the well-assured. – Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah.

This station, by itself, makes the Baha’i Faith the youngest 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 come on the Day of Judgment, the Day of God, the Time of the End, the End of the World, to establish the kingdom of God on Earth.

Baha’u’llah declared this period in history as the Day of God, the Time of the End. His mission is nothing less than the establishment of this glorious kingdom – the unification of the entire human race into an all-embracing, spiritually mature world civilization based upon divine principles of justice and love, and whose watchword will be unity in diversity.

With this second claim, Baha’is believe that all of the religions of the world have been consummated and fulfilled with the coming of Baha’u’llah.

https://bahaiteachings.org/what-did-bahaullah-teach?

 

[Trailblazer]

So God is the world champion of hide and seek.

Yup. God is hiding and He wants us to seek Him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not suggesting that anyone assume that God exists before they have any evidence, but since the Messengers of God are the only evidence they have to look at them to have evidence that God exists. We do not have to believe that God exists before we believe that the Messenger is speaking for God but we have to consider it possible that God exists.

How would you identify someone as a "Messenger of God" without first establishing that God had sent them?

In other words, one cannot FIRST establish that God exists BEFORE they believe in the Messenger of God since there is no way to know that God exists except by what the Messenger of God reveals about God.

That may be, but it doesn't automatically mean that your method works.

Maybe there's no rational path to belief in your god. I know that I certainly see no reason to reject this possibility.

Ultimately, it was the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is what convinced me that God exists.

I did not originally become a Baha'i because I believed in God, I became a Baha'i because I believed that the Baha'i Faith was a true religion. I did not think about whether Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or whether God exists back in those days. I only got serious in wanting to know about God about nine years ago.

What absolutely convinced me that God exists and allowed me to know about God and Messengers of God is the book entitled Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.

I first read and really understood that book in June 2014 and that was a turning point in my life.

So... you were attracted to Baha'u'llah's message, and this message includes belief in God, so you believe in God?

 

[Trailblazer]

Hence why none of them are evidence for God, regardless of what they say.

No, that is not logical. Just because some men who claim to speak for God are not really speaking for God that does not mean that some men who claim to speak for God are not really speaking for God.

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

Of course many people claim to be Messengers of God, or even God Himself, 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.

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

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern

1. X is true for A.
2. X is true for B.
3. Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

For example, if a person sees 10 people, all of them falsely claiming to be Messengers of God they may erroneously conclude that there are no true Messengers of God.

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.

If you're proposing a God which can't be proven to exist, demanding other people say what could be evidence for that God would be irrational and/or dishonest.

I did not 'demand' anything. Since atheists do not consider Messenger to be evidence for God, I asked:

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?

I never said anything about proof. Evidence is not proof.

You can't have evidence without a hypothesis (even if you don't realise that's what it is).

Okay, I might have a hypothesis but first explain what you mean by a hypothesis in simple terms.

Also, if you have evidence, why would you need belief? Call it what you want, you can't ask people what evidence would be if you don't first explain exactly what is being evidenced.

You raised a good point. I do not believe, I know, because of the evidence.

So, the hypothesis is what is being evidenced? Then tell me what you think needs to be evidenced.

And if you have evidence, why do you need anyone else to tell you what the evidence for God would be? Who are you really trying to convince here?

This is very simple and I explained it in the OP. I already have evidence that God exists but since atheists always say "that's not evidence" I wanted to know what would constitute evidence for atheists.

I am not trying to convince anybody of anything, I just had some questions for atheists.

 

[osgart]

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.

Evidence for God would be that everyone was created with basic decency and morality, that atrocity could not happen, the universe would be extremely suitable for life, we would be gloriously made and crafted, a book of life that was effective on all matters of life, nature and relationship, a supreme divine government, a total absence of infirmities, diseases, and no death.

We would be born with full knowledge, and wisdom to access and learn from. We would never have to feel pain, and suffering. We would be supplied with every life necessity.

There'd be no war, and battle.

The point is that a supreme God has no limits, and no incapabilities. None! God would be masterfully victorious at evil being totally impossible. God would create life supremely with no defectiveness.

A God has no need of rotten, wicked, evil and depravity. And nature allows and creates immorality. God would have none of that.

Any malevolent God would have destroyed us, or experimented on us by now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any malevolent God would have destroyed us, or experimented on us by now.

What do you think that he is doing right now?

I would agree that it does not look as if there is an omnibenevolent God.

All hail Cthulhu!

 

[F1fan]

jhngh

What is poor quality evidence to one person is good evidence to another. Whether it is good or poor is completely subjective.

Only good evidence is adequate. If you disagree, try going into court with poor evidence and see how well that goes. Good evidence is recognized by everyone.

It would be a start if atheists could at least understand this basic concept. They can still say that the evidence does not mean anything to them because they consider it poor.

Why do you blame atheists when you offer poor evidence?

There are facts that surround the Revelation of Baha'u'llah but that is all the facts we can have. We can never have facts about God, only beliefs.

I do not assume a God exists, I believe a God exists. I do not think anyone should ever assume God exists without evidence.

There is no evidence for any good existing so to believe on this basis is on par with assumption.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did not say that God can be demonstrated by empirical evidence, I said that God leaves empirical evidence because the religions of God that the Messengers of God establish come from God.

I don't get the distinction you're making, but I also don't think that "Messengers of God" count as evidence of God.

(And I do notice that you had to beg the question in order to argue that they're evidence of God)