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

[CG Didymus]

No; God IS to blame because he is the one allowing the false messengers to have the same credibility as the true ones.

Here's one of the people claiming to be a messenger from God...

Mirzā Ghulām Ahmad (13 February 1835 – 26 May 1908) was an Indian religious leader and the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement in Islam. He claimed to have been divinely appointed as the promised Messiah and Mahdi—which is the metaphorical second-coming of Jesus (mathīl-iʿIsā),[4][5] in fulfillment of Islam's latter day prophecies
​

Then there's these two...

Siyyid `Alí Muḥammad (October 20, 1819 – July 9, 1850) was a Manifestation of God and founder of the Bábí religion. He was a merchant from Shíráz, who at the age of twenty-five revealed Himself to be the promised Qá'im (or Mihdí). After His declaration He took the title of Báb (Arabic: باب) meaning "Gate."

Baháʼu'lláh stated that he was a messenger of God, and he used the term Manifestation of God to define the concept of an intermediary between humanity and God.
He stated that his claims to being several messiahs converging in one person were the symbolic, rather than literal, fulfilment of the messianic and eschatological prophecies found in the literature of the major religions.Baháʼu'lláh's eschatological claims constitute six distinctive messianic identifications:
​

Mirzā Ghulām Ahmad and Baha'u'llah have millions of followers. They both can't be right. Yet, I'm sure both believe they are following the truth from God. And I wonder what they think of the other group? But nope... can't blame God for that.

 

[CG Didymus]

Do you really have no idea?
Hint: it has something to do with monotheism.

At some point early on the Christian leaders came to the conclusion that God was a Trinity. But you know that.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you agree; most people reject the right message? So much for the false messages not having credibility huh?

I do agree that most people reject the right message, but that does not mean that they accept the false messages.

None of this is God's fault or doing because humans were all created with the capacity to recognize God's Messengers.

So for God to do the most reasonable, logical thing would go against his nature? How convenient!

What you apparently miss is that this is what YOU think would be the most reasonable, logical thing to do, but that does not mean it is either reasonable or logical. Do you think you know MORE than an all-knowing God regarding how to communicate to humans?

Sounds to me like he needs a new nature.

I'm sure God will take that into account.
Sounds to me like you need to step down off your pedestal and realize that you do not know more than the all-knowing God.

 

[CG Didymus]

My point is; popularity is not an indicator of truth! Just because mainstream religions look down on the less popular and call them cult; does not make them right.

Dr Walter Martin, who studied The Bahai Faith came to the following conclusion in his book “The Kingdom of the Cults”: “There is very little indeed that a true Christian can have in common with the faith of Bahai. There is simply no common ground on which to meet … The Bahai faith is at its very core anti-Christian theology.”​

I think Walter Martin thought all religions except Fundamental Christianity were cults. At least Baha'i and Muslims don't think Christianity is a cult... just that they are wrong and have false beliefs. Hmmm? I wonder how that is different than a cult?

 

[CG Didymus]

So for God to do the most reasonable, logical thing would go against his nature? How convenient! Sounds to me like he needs a new nature.

In one of these threads I asked about Baha'is that claimed to have had a vision of Abdul Baha. If that is true. Then God can send a representative, other than a manifestation, to a person.

 

[Tiberius]

We can think whatever we like.
If we consider it plausible that the world which we live in can evolve without an author for no other reason than "because it could" .. then that is what we believe.

Argument from incredulity.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Then that would not be an omniscient omnipotent deity.

Omnipotent and omniscient lite...

I don't trouble myself much with hypotheticals about deities that various different theists believe is real. Anymore than I waste much time wondering if mermaids have gills or lungs. However it is rationally inconsistent to claim a deity has limitless knowledge and power, then start listing things it can't do, especially things evolved apes have mastered.

There you go again Sheldon, insisting that the fathomless mysteries of existence explain themselves to you on your terms, or else be dismissed as unworthy of your consideration. And yet here you still are, troubling yourself with the very hypotheticals you claim not to be concerned with.

 

[Tiberius]

Of course one’s personal biases will enter in and there is nothing wrong with that. God wants OUR personal opinion, not the personal opinion of Joe Schmoe.

Then don't tell me you've got objective fact., All you can present is your opinion, nothing more, and there's no reason for anyone to believe your opinion is an account of reality.

In effect whether we recognize the Messenger for who He as is a test that God gives to us and it is a test that we are supposed to pass on our own. When you take a final exam, do other students ‘check’ your answers before you hand in your test?

In science, peer review is a vital part.

Your weak attempts to belittle it do not change the fact that peer review is an excellent way to make sure any personal biases are spotted.

As I have told you in the past, religion IS NOT science so the methods of coming to conclusions are very different.

But OBJECTIVE TRUTH is the same, no matter which method you use to reach it. And the techniques used to verify that something is objective truth do not care which method you used to get the claim in the first place.

AGAIN, should your classmates ‘check your work’ before you hand it in to the teacher?

Again, in science, peer review is a vital part.

It is the fallacy of false equivalence to equate religion with science and expect the methods of discovering truth to be the SAME.

I'm not talking about methods of finding truth, I'm talking about methods of verifying that a claim is truth.

I really don't give a rats what method you used to get the claim in the first place.

The scientific community does not SAY anything about religion or how to identify a true Messenger of God.

I know. What's your point?

You can stay mired as long as you want to just as I can stay mired as long as I want to because God gave us al free will to choose our beliefs.

At least you admit you're mired.

No idea why you talked about being mired as though it was a bad thing in post 4843 though, if you're going to proudly claim you are mired now.

They can say whatever they want to because they have free will, and they would be right because other Messengers such as Jesus had things that Baha’u’llah did not have. Conversely, Baha’u’llah had things the other Messengers did not have.

So why do you say their claims are wrong when yours are right?

I never said it was special, I only ever said that it is the new religion for this new age, the religion God wants everyone to follow. People can choose to drive a Model T or they can drive a new car. The model T will not get them across the country but the new car will.

How do you not see that the second you say, "Baha'i is the religion designed by God for Humanity in the 21st century, not those other religions that were made for previous time periods," you ARE saying that your faith is special!

I said “It is not a what if for me, it is a what if for you and other nonbelievers.”

I never said anything about consequences so Pascal's Wager is not even related to what I said.

The consequences were very strongly implied. Don't try to weasel out of it by claiming that it's not there unless you say it directly.

Their holy person of choice has done the things to back up their position but this is a new age and that is why we needed a new Messenger who revealed new things.

Oh please.

Your claim that different religions were designed for different ages just doesn't hold water.

You can't provide a list of which religions were relevant for which time periods. You will either leave out major religions or you will have new leaders coming in during a time when they apparently weren't needed.

 

[RestlessSoul]

@RestlessSoul was not listing the things that the deity cannot do:

@RestlessSoul said: "To ask why an omnipotent God doesn't do this or that, is simply to expose the limited perceptions of the questioner. We each see only a little. Only God sees all."

God can do anything but God does not choose to do everything that God can do, and that is why God does not do what some atheists expect God to do.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

Because atheists believe that man created God, and not the other way around, they naturally assume that this phenomenon they don’t believe in, must have readily definable characteristics. But even the greatest human intellects have failed to “know the mind of God”, as Stephen Hawking famously aspired to do. This is because, in as much as God can ever be understood by man, such understanding almost never originates in the intellect; mystics and visionaries, prophets and saints, of all spiritual traditions and none, seem universally to describe personal epiphanies which originate in the soul, or the heart. It is there that the connection to the Divine Mystery can be made.

The intellect, a wonderful tool but too closely linked to the deafening clamour of the ego to be a faithful guide in spiritual matters, cannot bring us to God; indeed, I’ve heard it said many times that a person cannot be too stupid to know God - but he can be too clever.

 

[Kfox]

Here's one of the people claiming to be a messenger from God...

Mirzā Ghulām Ahmad (13 February 1835 – 26 May 1908) was an Indian religious leader and the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement in Islam. He claimed to have been divinely appointed as the promised Messiah and Mahdi—which is the metaphorical second-coming of Jesus (mathīl-iʿIsā),[4][5] in fulfillment of Islam's latter day prophecies
​

Then there's these two...

Siyyid `Alí Muḥammad (October 20, 1819 – July 9, 1850) was a Manifestation of God and founder of the Bábí religion. He was a merchant from Shíráz, who at the age of twenty-five revealed Himself to be the promised Qá'im (or Mihdí). After His declaration He took the title of Báb (Arabic: باب) meaning "Gate."

Baháʼu'lláh stated that he was a messenger of God, and he used the term Manifestation of God to define the concept of an intermediary between humanity and God.
He stated that his claims to being several messiahs converging in one person were the symbolic, rather than literal, fulfilment of the messianic and eschatological prophecies found in the literature of the major religions.Baháʼu'lláh's eschatological claims constitute six distinctive messianic identifications:
​

Mirzā Ghulām Ahmad and Baha'u'llah have millions of followers. They both can't be right. Yet, I'm sure both believe they are following the truth from God. And I wonder what they think of the other group? But nope... can't blame God for that.

Actually you can blame God for that; because if God communicated with us himself, these kinda people wouldn't be out trying to trick people.

 

[muhammad_isa]

My point is; popularity is not an indicator of truth! Just because mainstream religions look down on the less popular and call them cult; does not make them right.

Are you saying that the best indicator of truth is the most obscure? No, I doubt it.

First of all, I am not singling out Christianity and Islam because they are popular. That would be due to what they teach.

Secondly, cults generally come about with quite different teachings from its roots. They are socially deviant in that they modify or cancel widely accepted moral values and are consequently socially deviant.

There is a difference between schism involving authority such as Sunni / Shia or Catholic / Protestant and a new religion based on a claimed Divine authority such as a prophet.

The study of the Bible and Qur'an are unique, imo.

 

[Kfox]

I do agree that most people reject the right message, but that does not mean that they accept the false messages.

Yeah it does! Of the multiple false messages out there, most have chosen one of those false messages to accept

None of this is God's fault or doing because humans were all created with the capacity to recognize God's Messengers.

Nobody is created, people are born; and most are born influenced by a false message from birth.

What you apparently miss is that this is what YOU think would be the most reasonable, logical thing to do, but that does not mean it is either reasonable or logical. Do you think you know MORE than an all-knowing God regarding how to communicate to humans?

What I think is you will make any excuse to justify why your (non-existent) God doesn’t come out of hiding.

 

[Kfox]

Dr Walter Martin, who studied The Bahai Faith came to the following conclusion in his book “The Kingdom of the Cults”: “There is very little indeed that a true Christian can have in common with the faith of Bahai. There is simply no common ground on which to meet … The Bahai faith is at its very core anti-Christian theology.”​

I think Walter Martin thought all religions except Fundamental Christianity were cults. At least Baha'i and Muslims don't think Christianity is a cult... just that they are wrong and have false beliefs. Hmmm? I wonder how that is different than a cult?

There is no difference; a Cult is a pejorative theists use to describe other theists who believe differently than they do.

 

[Kfox]

In one of these threads I asked about Baha'is that claimed to have had a vision of Abdul Baha. If that is true. Then God can send a representative, other than a manifestation, to a person.

Don't cha think it would be better for God to just talk to us himself? You know; like he (supposedly) did in the Old Testament?

 

[Kfox]

Are you saying that the best indicator of truth is the most obscure?

No; I'm saying just because it's popular, doesn't make it right!

First of all, I am not singling out Christianity and Islam because they are popular.

You said:
It is safer to stay in the mainstream, and not join a cult.
How is "mainstream" different than what is popular?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You said:
It is safer to stay in the mainstream, and not join a cult.
How is "mainstream" different than what is popular?

I think it is quite specific.
The word popular can be used as in "pop music" and doesn't suggest WHY people believe what they do, other than the number of people who follow it.

By "mainstream", I refer to that which does not deviate from core beliefs.
There are 1000's of different creeds. How do you propose to differentiate between them?
..but then of course, you don't really want to, do you?

 

[Kfox]

I think it is quite specific.
The word popular can be used as in "pop music" and doesn't suggest WHY people believe what they do, other than the number of people who follow it.

I agree.

By "mainstream", I refer to that which does not deviate from core beliefs.

Exactly what are"core beliefs"? I could probably ask 10 people that question and get 10 different answers.

There are 1000's of different creeds. How do you propose to differentiate between them?

How about by talking to them? Rather than dismissing them by calling them cults.

 

[muhammad_isa]

How about by talking to them? Rather than dismissing them by calling them cults.

You mean talk to the people, I assume?
I do, and have.

 

[Kfox]

You mean talk to the people, I assume?
I do, and have.

And after talking to them, you can't see any difference between the various different creeds?

 

[muhammad_isa]

And after talking to them, you can't see any difference between the various different creeds?

..and your point is?