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

[Nimos]

Whether the God did anything wright or wrong will come later. My first problem is about acceptance of his existence without any proof.
If there are so many issues even in the beginning, is there any reason to accept the existence of any God or Goddess?

Agree. Ultimately as long as this haven't been proven, discussing why someone believe is really the only thing that makes sense.

You have tagged yourself an atheist and Hindu, just curios how does that work?

 

[CG Didymus]

You said before that evidence is something that helps you build a case for a thing. How does the existence of someone who claims to speak for God - since that's all you can really have until you establish that God really did send them - help you build a case for God?

And keep in mind that this is all against a background of countless other people claiming to speak for various gods, none of whom you recognize as "Messengers."

So a messenger claiming to be sent from God is evidence that there is a God, because we can check out his life and his character and the things he said and wrote and determine that he is trustworthy? So because we can trust him, and he says that God sent him, it must be true. I think that's what Baha'is claim.

So these other guys that claim they came from some God, I guess, we look at their lives and character and the things they said and wrote and determine that they are full of it? Yet, lots of those rival religions to the Baha'is have just about as many followers. And they say the same kinds of things about why the Baha'i prophet is not true.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's a perfectly good example, because in BOTH cases the believer must develop the skills to believe in something without verifiable evidence. God has its messengers and Trump has his messengers. God can't be verified and Trumps win can't be verified. Millions of people think that they've verified the 'truth' of god's messengers and millions of people think that they've verified the 'truth' of Trump's messengers. Millions of people DON'T think there is verifiable evidence that Trump did not win and ALL because they developed this 'skill' for accepting things as true without verifiable evidence.

If that is not enough for you to believe in God then it's not.

That's what I've been saying from the beginning. Any claim that I'm expected to believe without verifiable evidence is not a claim worthy of my belief. I refuse to believe in QAnon without verifiable evidence. I refuse to believe that Trump won without verifiable evidence. And I refuse to believe in any proposed god being without verifiable evidence.

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.

Why would this god possibly think that I'm going to suddenly change the threshold of evidence that I require to believe in something just because this god being CLAIMS to be omnipotent? If Trump's messengers CLAIMED that Trump is omnipotent and asked you why you think you can set the terms for an omnipotent being like Trump to prove that he actually won, would you suddenly no longer require verifiable evidence? Of course not! I suspect that FIRST you'd need some sort of evidence that Trump actually IS omnipotent.

Yet for some bizarre reason you expect ME to accept that your god being exists and that your god being is omnipotent, but all WITHOUT any verifying evidence. Because your god is such a special case that I have to abandon the tried and true method I've used all my life for determining what's real when it comes to this ONE claim. That's precisely how you get people believing in QAnon, Trump's win, or that the pandemic has been one huge hoax. I'm going to stick with the tried and true method.

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.

Make up your mind. First you say that your god does NOT have a plan for getting ME its message then you say that your god has a plan for getting his message to EVERYONE. So if your omnipotent god KNOWS that sending a mere messenger will NEVER be sufficient to warrant my belief and the belief of those like me then this god being clearly does NOT have a plan for getting this message to EVERYONE. The only people he has a plan for getting his message to are those who ARE capable of believing in something based simply on the words of a messenger.

So IF your god genuinely intends for EVERYONE to get its message then obviously it has failed in its attempt and will continue to fail as long as it refuses to provide verifiable evidence to those of us who require it. It seems that the reality is that your god does NOT have a desire for everyone to believe, but only wants the belief of those who are capable of developing the skill of accepting claims without verifiable evidence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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?

No one has said that bad evidence or unconvincing evidence is not evidence. If you have evidence that fails to convince then by definition you have unconvincing EVIDENCE. If your claiming that there is NO SUCH THING as unconvincing evidence then you're saying that there is never evidence that fails to convince.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Maybe if you give an example of what you mean its better. This statement is commonly heard, but is absolutely vague.

So please provide an example of what you mean by evidence in someone proposing "God".

ver·i·fi·a·ble
/ˈverəfīəbl/
adjective

1. able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified.
   "an easily verifiable claim"

For example, you can claim that it's raining outside. If I have any doubts about your claim you can have me verify the validity of your claim by having me go to a window to see if water is actually falling from clouds in the sky. My witnessing water falling from the clouds qualifies as verifiable evidence for your claim.

You can make a claim for some sort of a creator god. If I have any doubts about your claim I will expect you to be able to provide me with some sort of verifiable evidence to support the claim. If you can then I will accept your claim is likely true. If you can't then I will continue to doubt the truth of your claim, that is I will continue to lack a belief in your claim.

Is there anything vague about that?

 

[F1fan]

It doesn't matter how you try to couch it or analogize it, it's both wrong, and illogical. If person A proposes as true that "God exists, and in turn effects our existence", but then cannot offer any proof of it (this is already a very subjective and inherently biased requirement) then the logical result is not to assume that the proposal is false, but that it is unproven.

And what is the effective difference? Either way the audience rejects the claim because it isn't shown to be true. Whatever word or phrase you prefer to use the net result is: the claim isn't shown to be true.

In logic the precision of language is important, as well as meaning of words. The binary true/false is simple.

For the very simple and obvious reason that it has not been proven a to be false, and could in fact be true even though it couldn't be proven to be true.

Since another rule in logic is that the claimant has the burden of proof, no one has to prove the claim isn't true.

Let's note that some claim being true is irrelevant. This is about what can be established. If the claimant fails to establish the proposition is true then the claim is rejected. It means nothing to say "we might have evidence some day" since that isn't a fact, it's just a guess.

Since I do not believe anyone here to be especially stupid, or incapable of understanding this obvious and simple course of logic, I can only assume that those who are trying to reject it are just being willfully and irrationally contrary.
The 'sun' is a physical phenomenon. 'God' is an ideological phenomenon. There is no logical reason to presume that the characteristics of the one should be required as evidence for the other.

Whaaaaaat are you trying to say?

And in fact, it is this illogical denial of a metaphysical realm that doomed philosophical materialism when it was first proposed, centuries ago. Unfortunately, there are many among us that didn't get the memo, and so are still trying to maintain this failed philosophy.

It's true that people believe in metaphysics. It isn't true that metaphysics describes reality, agreed?

The only possible way of obtaining physical proof for a proposed ideological paradigm (like those based on the existence and effectiveness of 'God') is to practice the paradigm while interacting with the physical world to see if it functions. But even if it does, this doesn't really prove the paradigm is true, it only proves that it's functional in relation to the physical world, and from our limited perspective. This is evidence that might convince someone, of course, but it's still not proof.

True. Evidence needs to be objective, and as removed from human judgment as possible, or at least removed from bias, like numerous people making the assessments.

 

[Trailblazer]

A god should be able to do better than people.

Who says he didn't do better?

Now here he may have you. Is your God all powerful and all knowing? Then he has some questions to answer.

An OMNIPOTENT God is not answerable to any humans for anything He does or does not do. That is logic 101 stuff.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which doesn't mean anything. Undeniable evidence is evidence that pretty much every reasonable person would recognize as evidence.

There is no such thing as undeniable evidence because there is no evidence that cannot be denied.
There is not such thing as a reasonable person as that is a totally subjective call.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who says he didn't do better?

An OMNIPOTENT God is not answerable to any humans for anything He does or does not do. That is logic 101 stuff.

Real life tells us the he did not do better. There are all sorts of flaws in our bodies that make sense when one is working with evolution. If one is starting from scratch it is just bad engineering.

And if God is merely a just God he has to be answerable. If god is a merciful God then he is even more answerable. It is strange that you now think that your God is an evil God. Is that why you worship him? Out of fear? Your version of God does not sound as if he merits worship at all.

You appear to have failed Logic 101. Just because a being could do something does not make it moral or right and he is still answerable..

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no such thing as undeniable evidence because there is no evidence that cannot be denied.
There is not such thing as a reasonable person as that is a totally subjective call.

There is evidence that cannot be denied by an honest person. Yes, dishonest people will deny the obvious. We had a President that did that. You are being a bit too literal in your version of "undeniable". The term assumes a minimal amount of honesty from the observer.

 

[Trailblazer]

Anyone who claims to be a messenger of god can ONLY be assessed by what they themselves claim is the message.

No, they can never be assessed by their claims because anybody can make claims. They can only be assessed by what they actually do. As Jesus said "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

Proofs of Prophethood​

Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men. The tests He proposed are the same as those laid down by His great predecessors. Moses said:—

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.—Deut. xviii, 22.

Christ put His test just as plainly, and appealed to it in proof of His own claim. He said:—

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. … Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.—Matt. vii, 15–17, 20

In the chapters that follow, we shall endeavor to show whether Bahá’u’lláh’s claim to Prophethood stands or falls by application of these tests: whether the things that He had spoken have followed and come to pass, and whether His fruits have been good or evil; in other words, whether His prophecies are being fulfilled and His ordinances established, and whether His lifework has contributed to the education and upliftment of humanity and the betterment of morals, or the contrary.”

Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 8-9

 

[Trailblazer]

And if God is merely a just God he has to be answerable.

An Almighty God is not answerable to humans. Try to figure out why, even if you don't like the answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An Almighty God is not answerable to humans. Try to figure out why, even if you don't like the answer.

Ooh my, so God is evil. Okay.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An OMNIPOTENT God is not answerable to any humans for anything He does or does not do. That is logic 101 stuff.

A cat can look at a king.

 

[Trailblazer]

LOL. This is an open debate forum. You volunteer to subject yourself to scrutiny every time you post your beliefs. You seem to feel entitled to be free from scrutiny. If you find the questions uncomfortable your only option is to not post.

That is not true. I do not feel entitled to be free from scrutiny. However, please note that I did not start this thread to talk about MY BELIEFS (see the OP) so why are people talking about them? Certainly NOT because I brought them up. The very last thing I want to do is talk about my beliefs. I only talk about them because I feel obligated to answer when people post to me and talk about them.

Doesn't your prophet teach about personal responsibility?

Yes, and that is the ONLY reason I am on this forum 24/7.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you have evidence that fails to convince then by definition you have unconvincing EVIDENCE.

It is only unconvincing evidence for the people it fails to convince.
It is convincing evidence for those who are convinced by it.

 

[F1fan]

That is not true. I do not feel entitled to be free from scrutiny. However, please note that I did not start this thread to talk about MY BELIEFS (see the OP) so why are people talking about them?

Because you bring them up. A lot.

Your dilemma is HOW you approach debate. You don't understand what good quality evidence means and that it applies to you. You have your beliefs, but you bring up what you think is evidence and it isn't very good. The evidence is good enough for you, but that doesn't matter in debate. When any of us debate we have to offer good evidence. You essentially appeal for others to lower their standards so your evidence is convincing. That doesn't work.

Certainly NOT because I brought them up. The very last thing I want to do is talk about my beliefs. I only talk about them because I feel obligated to answer when people post to me and talk about them.

Then that is your problem. No one is forcing you to post about your beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is evidence that cannot be denied by an honest person. Yes, dishonest people will deny the obvious. We had a President that did that. You are being a bit too literal in your version of "undeniable". The term assumes a minimal amount of honesty from the observer.

The evidence for something that can be proven, like the election results were proven, cannot be compared with evidence for a Messenger of God. That is the fallacy of false equivalence.

This has nothing to do with honesty, it has to do with making an effort to look at the evidence. People cannot recognize the evidence unless they look at the evidence. If they continually say "that's not evidence" they will never know what the evidence is.

Also, those who are guided by God will recognize the evidence.

“So blind hath become the human heart that neither the disruption of the city, nor the reduction of the mountain in dust, nor even the cleaving of the earth, can shake off its torpor. The allusions made in the Scriptures have been unfolded, and the signs recorded therein have been revealed, and the prophetic cry is continually being raised. And yet all, except such as God was pleased to guide, are bewildered in the drunkenness of their heedlessness!” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 39

 

[F1fan]

No, they can never be assessed by their claims because anybody can make claims.

So if some guy makes a series of claims about the future in great detail, and even picks the winners of next weeks football games, complete with scores, and predicts the stock market every day, and does other amazing things like making claims about the long term future, you don't think that would be impressive?

They can only be assessed by what they actually do. As Jesus said "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

Who cares what the prophets do? Fake prophets can be totally decent people, does that mean something about whether they are authentic?

This whole question here is based on your claim that Messengers of god is evidence of a god existing. But your own standard can't assess whether the messenger is authentic in what he/she says.

I argue that the ONLY thing that would render a messenger authentic is when they make true and detailed predictions that cannot be coincidence or a random guess. The messenger can be a total drunk and get in bar fights and arrested every weekend, but if he has that gift, well that is what you could point to as authentic and credible as evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because you bring them up. A lot.

No, I do not bring them up unsolicited. I meant what I said. The last thing I want to do is talk about my beliefs. I only answer posts because I feel an obligation to answer them. Don't say one more thing about Baha'u'llah or the Baha'i Faith and you won't hear from me.

People do not always like their job but they do it because it puts food on the table. I answer posts because I consider it my responsibility, even though that means I have no time for anything else. My life is in shambles. Anyone who thinks I like talking about my beliefs needs to have their head examined.