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.

I was wondering if bahaullahs teachings say God can never come to earth and verify himself as a messenger.

 

[Trailblazer]

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'?

If evidence fails to convince me of something then I was not convinced by the evidence. That does not mean the evidence was not evidence, it only means I was not convinced by the evidence, for whatever reason.

There is no such thing as unconvincing evidence, there is only evidence that fails to convince.

Anyone can claim that something is evidence. Why would I be convinced by absolutely anything someone claims is evidence?

 

[Trailblazer]

You have only been using circular reasoning here.

Explain how I used circular reasoning. It is not acceptable to make assertions without evidence to back them up.
Assertions with nothing to back them up are bald assertions.

 

[Trailblazer]

I was wondering if bahaullahs teachings say God can never come to earth and verify himself as a messenger.

God is not a Messenger so why would Baha'u'llah say that?
Are you wondering why God cannot come down to earth?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God is not a Messenger so why would Baha'u'llah say that?
Are you wondering why God cannot come down to earth?

I assume everything you learn about god comes from Bahaullah?

I reason if god can do anything there's no limitations. However each theist religion has different views of god and definitions.

 

[F1fan]

People make mistakes.

You prove this in most every post.

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

Much like your evidence convinces you of a god that might not exist.

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

It might be a fact he's a messenger, but it's not a fact he's a messenger from any actual god. You don't have that crucial fact.

 

[Trailblazer]

I assume everything you learn about god comes from Bahaullah?

I reason if god can do anything there's no limitations. However each theist religion has different views of god and definitions.

God can only do what is within His nature to do. For example, God cannot become a man because then God would not be God, since God is not a man. God is spirit so God cannot become flesh.

 

[Trailblazer]

You prove this in most every post.

Unless you can prove I made a mistake that is a bald assertion.

Much like your evidence convinces you of a god that might not exist.

Might or might not. I am not one for taking chances especially when I have evidence.

It might be a fact he's a messenger, but it's not a fact he's a messenger from any actual god. You don't have that crucial fact.

I never said it was a fact, never ever. I have only ever said that it is a belief because it can NEVER be established as a fact that anyone ever got messages from God.

 

[F1fan]

Unless you can prove I made a mistake that is a bald assertion.

Me and others have pointed out your poor logic many, many times. That you don't accept our points is yet more errors.

Might or might not. I am not one for taking chances especially when I have evidence.

Let us know when you have evidence.

I never said it was a fact, never ever. I have only ever said that it is a belief because it can NEVER be established as a fact that anyone ever got messages from God.

So the "messengers of god" could be lying?

 

[viole]

God did provide evidence but I already know that atheists don't consider it evidence, Boy do I know it after 9 years of posting to atheists, day and night!

The hundred million dollar question is what what God provides is not good enough for atheists when it is good enough for everyone else. The other question is what would constitute evidence of God's existence for an atheist, which was the point of my OP.

Of course we do not consider it as evidence. It would be like saying we have evidence of Superman because someone claimed to be a messenger of Superman. Everybody can say that.

and by the way, failing to recognize that as evidence, is not a prerogative of atheists. I suspect that all other theists, who believe in the competition, will not see that as evidence, either.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I believe that will happen eventually, but not for a very long time. In order for that to happen all theists would have to recognize Baha'u'llah, who said that there is only one true God and only one religion of God, which is revealed in various chapters throughout history. I believe that in the future everyone will recognize Baha'u'llah because of what He wrote.

“Warn and acquaint the people, O Servant, with the things We have sent down unto Thee, and let the fear of no one dismay Thee, and be Thou not of them that waver. The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.”Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 248

Yes. Whenever I define something that I would consider as evidence, it always will happen eventually.

ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

Me and others have pointed out your poor logic many, many times. That you don't accept our points is yet more errors.

How does what 'you and others' have pointed out prove anything?
How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

All atheists do is hurl names of fallacies but they can never EXPLAIN how I committed any.

Let us know when you have evidence.

Been there, done that.

So the "messengers of god" could be lying?

Not if they were true Messengers of God. Only the false messengers were lying.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course we do not consider it as evidence. It would be like saying we have evidence of Superman because someone claimed to be a messenger of Superman. Everybody can say that.

How many hundreds of times to I have to say that I do not believe that any Messenger of God was a Messenger of God because He said so. That would be circular reasoning.

I believe because of the evidence that indicates that He was a Messenger of God, NOT because He said He was a Messenger of God.

I wonder why people don't pay any attention to what I say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does what 'you and others' have pointed out prove anything?
How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

All atheists do is hurl names of fallacies but they can never EXPLAIN how I committed any.

Been there, done that.

Not if they were true Messengers of God. Only the false messengers were lying.

I am sorry, but your use of fallacies have been explained to you many times. After a while it gets tiresome.

 

[Trailblazer]

and by the way, failing to recognize that as evidence, is not a prerogative of atheists. I suspect that all other theists, who believe in the competition, will not see that as evidence, either.

That's true but why would it matter how many people see it as evidence?

How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

Move a Himalayan peak to Antarctica. Can God do it?

Machapuchare Peak (Fish Tail Mountain), Nepal.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am sorry, but your use of fallacies have been explained to you many times. After a while it gets tiresome.

That is unacceptable in a debate forum when you make accusations and cannot provide any evidence, it is called chickening out.
No, it has not been explained to me why what I said was fallacious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is unacceptable in a debate forum when you make accusations and cannot provide any evidence, it is called chickening out.
No, it has not been explained to me why what I said was fallacious.

It appears that you have already forgotten your terrible failure with "prophecies".

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes. Whenever I define something that I would consider as evidence, it always will happen eventually.

ciao

- viole

I was not defining something that I would consider as evidence....
That is totally unrelated to what I was talking about. I was not talking about evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

It appears that you have already forgotten your terrible failure with "prophecies".

There was no failure but even if there was that is not a fallacy.