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

[Trailblazer]

Do people have a reason to doubt the religious claims of other people? I assume you'd agree.

Yes, I agree, but the point of that passage is that we should never believe in a religion because of what other people claim about it, whether they claim it is true or false.

What Baha’u’llah wrote in The Kitáb-i-Íqán (The Book of Certitude) on the very first pages is vitally important. The following is part of the last sentence of a longer paragraph, the part I want to point out and explain.

“…… inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4

What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people say or do.

What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves.

How to Independently Investigate the Truth

Then, "disbelieved" in his beauty? What beauty has God shown to Atheists? In most all religions the claim is that God did things and said things... Can it be proven? I'd say no. Do you agree with that?

The Atheists would have to read the Scriptures in order to know what the beauty of God is, since that is the only way to know anything about God. In most all religions the claim is that God did things. I consider that anthropomorhism, since humans can never know what God did, as we can only know what God said through the Messenger of God who speaks as the Voice of God. However, since the only Messengers of God who wrote their own Scriptures were the Bab and Baha'u'llah, the older Scriptures are the Word of God through men, so we can never know how accurately they were recorded. From the Guardian:

...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)
.
No, it cannot be proven that God spoke to Baha'u'llah or any of the other Messengers.

Then this guy says he just went along with the crowd? How many "follow" the crowd and just believe in a religion because of other people?

Probably a lot of people believe in things (not just religion) because of other people. I have never been that way as I think for myself, I never go along with the crowd.

And, it sounds to me, that most Atheists have done a lot of "investigating" of what is true. And a real God isn't part of what they have found. Just a lot of people in a lot of religions saying there is a God. And they all say and believe different things.

What have Atheists investigated besides the Bible? I would not consider that an investigation. Do you think that many Atheists investigate the Baha'i Faith? Even if they do they don't read enough to really know what it is all about.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, that's bare claim again.

Call it whatever you like but that does not change the fact that it could be true or false, and it is not necessarily false unless you can prove it is false.

 

[Sheldon]

Call it whatever you like but that does not change the fact that it could be true or false,

It has nothing to do with me wanting anything, you cannot evidence a bare claim, with a second bare claim. Also that's not much of a fact, since everything is either true or false, and there are two separate claims here, one that the writings are true, and two that the conclusions you believe it demonstrates are also true or correct.

it is not necessarily false unless you can prove it is false.

No, this is a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..everything is either true or false...

You sound like a computer.
Is the world we live in a "digital world" ?
..or is it analogue?

For example, we could say that "The Bible is false", due to some errors in it.
A better description is "the Bible is true", but it contains errors.

Not a very good example, but you know what I mean.
Shades of gray exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well that's not much of a fact, everything is either true or false, and there are two separate claims here, one that the writings are true, and two that the conclusions you believe it demonstrates are also true or correct.

That's right, there are two separate claims, (1) that there are Writings, and (2) what those Writings demonstrate.

No, this is a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I said: "it is not necessarily false unless you can prove it is false."
I did not say that it is true unless you can prove it is false. I believe it is true, but it is unknown whether it is true or false, since a religious belief can never be 'proven' to be true or false.

This is a common fallacy atheists commit when they say my religious beliefs are false because they have not yet been proven true. They also commit this fallacy when they say that "God exists" is false because it has not been proven true that God exists.

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

 

[Sheldon]

You sound like a computer.

Form one simple factual statement? That's an odd claim.

Is the world we live in a "digital world" ?
..or is it analogue?

In what sense?

A better description is "the Bible is true", but it contains errors.

Well it is filled with errant nonsense, that's a given sorry if that upsets anyone, but is a fact. So true how? If it contains errors then it is demonstrably not the inerrant word of an infallible deity. Not that it matters, in the context of theism, I don't believe there is any objective evidence in it for any deity.

Not a very good example, but you know what I mean.
Shades of gray exist.

Well of course, that was my point that it's a slightly facile observation, but then it wasn't mine I was repeating it, when I said everything is either true or false, I wasn't suggesting a book that has been cobbled together from multiple sources like the bible is either entirely true or entirely false. It can contain some truths of course, not that they are objective evidence for a deity. My point was the claim didn't tell us much, but you edited that part out?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well it is filled with errant nonsense, that's a given sorry if that upsets anyone, but is a fact. So true how? If it contains errors then it is demonstrably not the inerrant word of an infallible deity.

I do not believe it is the inerrant word of an infallible deity. Rather, it is the words of men who claimed to speak for the deity.

 

[CG Didymus]

What have Atheists investigated besides the Bible? I would not consider that an investigation. Do you think that many Atheists investigate the Baha'i Faith? Even if they do they don't read enough to really know what it is all about.

The Baha'i Faith believes in God. It's going to be tough to get an Atheist to investigate past that. But, like I've mentioned a few times, Baha'is and Atheists don't believe a lot of the same things about the Bible. Both believe a lot of the stories are fictional. They just include the main character as being fictional also.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Baha'i Faith believes in God. It's going to be tough to get an Atheist to investigate past that.

If Atheists don't care if God exists I wonder why they are always asking me for evidence? Maybe it is just a game to show I have no evidence. I don't have time for games or any interest in them, which is why you see me posting a lot less lately.

 

[Tiberius]

That is because parents are responsible for their children, not God.

Exactly right!

Why, just the other day I saw a young child run out into the middle of a busy road with cars and trucks and busses speeding along. I saw the kid running, and I could have stopped him, but I didn't. I just let the kid run out into busy speeding traffic.

And you know why?

Because parents are responsible for their children, not me.

 

[Tiberius]

What is an objective truth vs subjective?

A subjective claim cannot be proved right or wrong by any generally accepted criteria. An objective claim may be true or false; just because something is objective does not mean it is true.

Objective and Subjective Claims - TIP Sheet - Butte College

Please read my post careful and note what I said.

Objective TRUTH - something that is actually true in reality, something that is true for everyone.

You are being dishonest by twisting my words and pretending I was talking about objective claims. It's called the Strawman Fallacy. Naughty naughty, go sit in the corner, and there'll be no desert for you.

 

[Tiberius]

I have provided evidence, the evidence that supports the claim. Sorry you don't like it.

No you haven't. You've even stated several times that there can be no real evidence for the religious claims that a religion makes.

Now you are telling me that you've provided some of this evidence that you say can't exist?

That is just two people discussing a religion and sharing what we should be looking for and I have no problem with that.

Neither do I/ I just have a problem when they start treating it as though it's objective fact.

It is likely that many people are mistaken about a religious belief and I believe they are, but if you want to believe it because many people believe it maybe you should believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

As I've already explained to you, just because you have many people all believing something is true that is NO REASON to believe it is true. It is the fallacy of ad populum to conclude that a religious belief is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

Argument from popularity is not a fallacy IF THOSE PEOPLE HAVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE THAT THEY CAN SHOW YOU.

As I have told you repeatedly, you can only use that for science, not for religion.

Yeah, for religion you have to use a different method that gives you the results you expect to get.

No, that is not special pleading on my part because I clearly explained why science and religion work differently, and I explained why religion and science have different kinds of evidence and I explained why different methods of investigation are required.

Sorry, I must have missed the post where you gave a reasonable explanation for why testable evidence isn't needed to find religious truth. Because all I've seen from you with regards to that is the same old weak, "But religion's different because it's religion."

What you are doing is special pleading by deliberately ignoring aspects that are unfavorable to your point of view.

Kinda like how you ignore the aspects that are unfavorable to your religious point of view and invent ways to handwave them away, right?

When you expect evidence and research methods for science to be the same as evidence and research methods for religion that is special pleading because there can never be verifiable evidence for God or a religion the way there is verifiable evidence for scientific facts, which are verifiable by measurement and testing. As such you want something that is completely unrealistic. It is completely illogical to have such as expectation because science and religion are completely different scopes of knowledge.

If there can never be any verifiable evidence for God or religion, why do you keep claiming that you have evidence for them that you have verified?

 

[Tiberius]

A religion can be objectively true, it just cannot be proven to be objective truth.

Then how do you know it can be objectively true?

That is how we know scientific facts a re true, but that is NOT how we know a religious belief is true.
When are you going to stop conflating science with religion?

I'm not. I know they are different.

But they are BOTH claiming to be methods of finding out the truth.

If that is what you think then by all means stop discussing religion and save us both some time.

If everyone who shared my views did that, then there'd be no one to stop the people who think that religion should be used to determine what we do as a society.

And I don't fancy living in a theocracy.

Come back and talk to me when you want to face the reality that religion and science are not the same.

I know they aren't the same.

I'm here talking about methods of finding out what is true. And I'm saying that any method that we use to find out what is true MUST have a way of checking the results, otherwise we can never be sure that what we have found is the truth.

 

[Tiberius]

Simply put, because God doesn't want to do that, and God only does what He wants to do.
God wants you to become a believer by choice, by exercising your own free will and choosing to believe, or not believe at all.

So lucky we have you here to speak for God. Hey, maybe you're the next Messenger from God! Wouldn't that be neat?

 

[Tiberius]

You said: Very well. Relativity is a scientific theory and can be described with mathematics. Please show the maths that describe how the outcome of a choice can be known before the choice is made.

Is that the best you've got .. show me the maths?
I would, if I thought that it was worthwhile.

You haven't shown me that you understand the implications from relativity as to regards time..
You are taking me for a fool, if you think that I would waste my time in that way.

Perhaps you can show us why I'm wrong mathematically?
I know, "the burden of proof is on me".
No it is NOT. I do not have to prove anything to you !
You may put me on ignore if you think that what I say is rubbish

Once again you run from having to support your claims.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Once again you run from having to support your claims.

No, I'm still here.
It is quite obvious that you are bluffing and have no idea what you are talking about.

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.
- Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia -

Are you asking me to show you the maths of something that is common knowledge for physicists? What is the point of that?

 

[samtonga43]

I do not believe it is the inerrant word of an infallible deity. Rather, it is the words of men who claimed to speak for the deity.

Kind of like the B.man and Co.

 

[Sheldon]

I do not believe it is the inerrant word of an infallible deity. Rather, it is the words of men who claimed to speak for the deity.

Indeed, I can see why you'd believe that.

 

[CG Didymus]

Do people have a reason to doubt the religious claims of other people?

Yes, I agree, but the point of that passage is that we should never believe in a religion because of what other people claim about it, whether they claim it is true or false.

Yes, and that includes the Baha'i Faith... that has objective evidence that a man claimed he was a manifestation of God. You've proven it true to yourself. But... since you are not them, they shouldn't take your word for it, they must prove that this man's claim is true for themselves.

What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people say or do.

What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves.

And that is exactly what you say too. Great. And you say they said investigate it for themselves. The problem with that is how far should they carry out their investigation? Their question is does God really exist. The Baha'i Faith says "yes". They say, "Fine, what objective proof do you have." And it sounds like there is none for God, because we can't see him or touch him... all we can know about him is what his manifestations say about him. Okay, what proof is there that they are telling the truth... that God is real and that God sent them?

The Atheists would have to read the Scriptures in order to know what the beauty of God is, since that is the only way to know anything about God. In most all religions the claim is that God did things. I consider that anthropomorhism, since humans can never know what God did, as we can only know what God said through the Messenger of God who speaks as the Voice of God. However, since the only Messengers of God who wrote their own Scriptures were the Bab and Baha'u'llah, the older Scriptures are the Word of God through men, so we can never know how accurately they were recorded. From the Guardian:

...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic.

We can't trust what the older religions said, but we can trust what the Baha'i writings said?

No, it cannot be proven that God spoke to Baha'u'llah or any of the other Messengers.

But we can't prove that Baha'u'llah, or any other messenger, actually spoke to God? But we can trust Baha'u'llah what said and wrote? And he says God is real and that he is a messenger from God and so were several other people. But he is "other" people. Why should someone trust what he says? And they shouldn't. They should investigate on their own if he is telling the truth. So what is his reasons to say that God is real? Anything there that would convince an Atheist?

I wasn't suggesting a book that has been cobbled together from multiple sources like the bible is either entirely true or entirely false. It can contain some truths of course, not that they are objective evidence for a deity.

So, the Bible... Is it true? Are the stories about God in it true?

I do not believe it is the inerrant word of an infallible deity. Rather, it is the words of men who claimed to speak for the deity.

Apparently, no. Some things in it might be true, but what things? Baha'is believe whatever Baha'u'llah has quoted must be true. Why should an Atheist believe that?

It all comes back to, they shouldn't. They should investigate for themselves if what Baha'u'llah claims are true. God is real. He was sent by God. Which, after all of this, a person can only prove it themselves? And they can tell you why they believe it, but why they believe it is not proof as to why someone else should believe it?

So, where does that leave us? Still questioning... Why believe that Baha'u'llah is a messenger from God? If that can be proven, then what he says is true. He is the only proof and the way we can know about God. Can that be proven? No, only to oneself? So, we're nowhere. It depends on what a person wants to believe. What they think is true. But, when it comes to religious truth, some people refuse to except things that can't be proven to be true. And that, I think, is a good thing. Although, I can't prove it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Kind of like the B.man and Co.

No, the Bible is nothing like the Writings of Baha'u'llah. The Bible was written by men whereas Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God who wrote His own scriptures.