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

[Unveiled Artist]

I do not understand your question. God would not come down to verify Himself as a Messenger from God because God is not a Messenger from God. God is God and God never comes down to earth.

Is that in bahuallahs writings?

How do you know?

 

[Trailblazer]

So any person who claims their god exists has evidence? And these gods often conflict with others, so how can there be evidence of the ONE GOD and there be evidence for other gods as well?

Yes, they probably have evidence for what they believe but that does not mean their evidence is valid evidence.
Since there is only one God whatever evidence they are presenting is for that one God even if they believe it is evidence for a different God. For example some Christians will say that they believe in the the Bible God as if there is another God that Muslims and Baha'is believe in! That is highly illogical because there is only one true God although there are many different 'conceptions' of God.

Can you concede the evidence you refer to here is ONLY relevant to the individual believer. and worthless to anyone else?

Yes, it is worthless to anyone who does not believe it is evidence, but that does not mean the evidence is worthless.

If theists like yourself are arguing for the existence of YOUR particular god then the claims of other theists are competition. By your lax attitude it seems to suggest you are approaching all this from a "personal belief" perspective and don't care about other types theists. But then that only damages the arguments that god exists as a fixed and actual thing that can be defined to an adequate degree.

I am approaching this from a "personal belief" perspective but that does not mean that I do not believe that there is truth in other religions I do not ascribe to. I do not consider it a competition because I believe all the revealed religions are true, although the older religions got really mucked up over time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

This is only true once the evidence gets to a certain quality.

If you set the evidentiary bar so low that mutually exclusive claims both clear it, the bar is objectively too low.

 

[Trailblazer]

Propaganda.

propaganda
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+propaganda

How was my list of why people do not become Baha'is propaganda? Those ARE the reasons and they can be verified with evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

You forgot the most important one. Because reliable evidence does not exist.

That is not the reason AT ALL.

No matter what the evidence was do you really think a Christian or a Jew would become a Baha'i?
I guess you know very little about why people believe as they do.

Your thinking is overly simplistic but I look at all the angles. That is why I made a list.

It is all on the order of "Because Jimmy said so".

No, NONE of it is on the order of that. I do not believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God because He said so. That would be circular reasoning.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then perhaps you should try to find objective evidence.

Let me know what you locate God with your GPS tracker and get your objective evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

That is illogical. Evidence is NOT evidence because it is convincing. It is evidence because it is evidence for whatever someone is trying to prove.

Case in point: A prosecutor wants to prove the defendant is guilty so he presents all the evidence to the jury. Some of the jurors might be convinced that the man is guilty and some won't be convinced but the evidence is still evidence.

 

[F1fan]

propaganda
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+propaganda

How was my list of why people do not become Baha'is propaganda? Those ARE the reasons and they can be verified with evidence.

The list is making assumptions that your religion is true, and that others reject it for dubious reasons. Very misleading.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

That is not what I said. I said unless one has a proper understanding of what God is they are shooting in the dark. How would you know what you are looking for unless you have an understanding of what it is you are looking for?

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.

I do not define God. Messengers of God define God because they alone know what God is.

 

[F1fan]

That is illogical. Evidence is NOT evidence because it is convincing.

Hahaha. So a prosecutor doesn't present evidence to a jury because it convinces them of the defendant's guilt?

No wonder there are never any convictions in trials. Dang.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

One cannot 'establish' that God sent a Messenger because that cannot ever be known as a fact, and that is why it is a belief.
The way we can identify someone as a Messenger of God is by looking at all the evidence that supports their claim.

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.

My method might not work for you because you are a different person who thinks differently from me.
I believe that there is a rational path to belief in God but first one has to be able to think rationally.

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

No, not exactly. Initially I was attracted to Baha'u'llah's message. Baha'u'llah wrote about God and since I believe everything He wrote is true, I believe that God exists and that everything He wrote about God is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Why would God be responsible for making humans a certain way? What you are describing is a world where humans have no free will to choose between good and evil, in which case humans would simply be God's programmed robots.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

That might be true in a court of law but it is not true for religion for the reasons 1-7 I listed.
In short, the biases that people have prevent them for recognizing the evidence.

Also, the evidence in a court of law that convinces a jury is eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence. There can never be any such evidence for God's existence.

Why do you blame atheists when you offer poor evidence?

Who is blaming atheists? Not me. I said 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 is no evidence for any good existing so to believe on this basis is on par with assumption.

Just because you do not recognize any evidence for God existing that does not mean there is no evidence for God existing. The Bible alone is evidence, as it is God's greatest testimony to His creatures.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is that in bahuallahs writings?

How do you know?

Yes, that is how I know.

 

[Trailblazer]

The list is making assumptions that your religion is true, and that others reject it for dubious reasons. Very misleading.

No. it does not assume my religion is true, it is just a list of why most people do not believe it is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hahaha. So a prosecutor doesn't present evidence to a jury because it convinces them of the defendant's guilt?

People make mistakes. The evidence might convince the jury of the defendant's guilt when the defendant is not guilty.

The evidence for Baha'u'llah might convince most people He is not guilty of being a Messenger when in fact He is.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, that is how I know.

Can you give a scripture example?

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

That is not a valid comparison because it was possible to verify that Trump did not win. By contrast, there is no such thing as verifiable evidence of God because God cannot be verified. The best we can do is verify that the Messenger of God was telling the truth. If that is not enough for you to believe in God then it's not.

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.

Of course God knows all of that but why would you think that God cares if you require verifiable evidence? God does not need your belief.

As I said above, God has a desire for you to believe in Him and to get the message He has to offer, but only on His terms. Why would you think you can set the terms for am omnipotent God? Why do you think that God owes it to you to give you what you want? It is not God that needs your belief as God has no needs at all. It is you who suffers from non-belief, even if you do not realize it.

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.

God is doing a bad job because He did not get your belief? God does not have a plan for getting YOU His message, God has a plan to get His message out to everyone and the way God does that is with His Messengers. God is omniscient so of course God knows that *best way* to get His message out. How many people 'believe' that message has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Can you give a scripture example?

Can you tell me what you want an example of? I was not sure what you were saying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not the reason AT ALL.

No matter what the evidence was do you really think a Christian or a Jew would become a Baha'i?
I guess you know very little about why people believe as they do.

Your thinking is overly simplistic but I look at all the angles. That is why I made a list.

No, NONE of it is on the order of that. I do not believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God because He said so. That would be circular reasoning.

You have only been using circular reasoning here.