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

[Kfox]

..and your point is?

You are the one who asked how are we supposed to differentiate between them; not me.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

What does it even mean that "religion is not science"? Isn't science about the methodology? So, we can look at the objective evidence and facts and come to some ideas about religion. We can also use social sciences to come to some ideas of why people believe in religions. And then how their beliefs affect their lives. But Baha'is do believe science and religion should go hand and hand. I guess except when it comes to proving God exists or not. But here's some quotes...

But the religion which does not walk hand in hand with science is itself in the darkness of superstition and ignorance.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 144

Furthermore He proclaims that religion must be in harmony with science and reason. If it does not conform to science and reconcile with reason it is superstition.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’í World Faith, p. 247

I say unto you: weigh carefully in the balance of reason and science everything that is presented to you as religion. If it passes this test, then accept it, for it is truth! If, however, it does not so conform, then reject it, for it is ignorance!
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 144

If any religion rejected Science and knowledge, that religion was false. Science and Religion should go forward together; indeed, they should be like two fingers of one hand.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in London, p. 71

If religion does not agree with science, it is superstition and ignorance; for God has endowed man with reason in order that he may perceive reality.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 127

If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 175

It is impossible for religion to be contrary to science, even though some intellects are too weak or too immature to understand truth.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 145

Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion and religion fortify science. Both are indissolubly welded and joined in reality.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 175
​

The site was all just quotes about science and religion. There's plenty more. I didn't know where to stop. It sure sounds like the Baha'i Faith supports science and believes science supports the Baha'i Faith.

​

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Yes, I agree. Assuming this God is real, part of his plan is to let people be deceived. Depending on where a person lives and who they meet in life can completely change which religion they come to believe in. If it that random, then is God real and in control?

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Okay, which of these two is right? Or are they both right? Or both wrong?

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

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:

 

[CG Didymus]

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?

He even spoke from the sky in the NT. He had Moses and Elijah appear and Jesus turn into a shining light being. He's all-everything. Why not appear like George Burns or Morgan Freeman and then do all sorts of miraculous things?

But supposedly, that's what the manifestations are kind of like. Like God in the flesh sort of people. But that's where I disagree with Baha'is... Abraham and Moses weren't God-like. If Baha'is include Adam as a manifestation, then he was definitely not God-like. And when Baha'is say that manifestations are perfect reflections of God, then that is calling them "God-like" to me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are the one who asked how are we supposed to differentiate between them; not me.

Is that all you can do?
Go round and round in circles?

OK You would rather not believe "popular" religions.
In other words, you'd rather people were disbelievers .. or believed some obscure claim.

Not me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Okay, which of these two is right? Or are they both right? Or both wrong?

You want a black and white answer? Wrong.
..in as much as those two are not messengers of G-d.

G-d knows best why they claimed to be.
Lots of people do.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Many people have chosen to believe false messages. So what? Whose fault is that?
It is their fault because they choose to believe in the false messages instead of the true messages.

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

When I said that most people were created with the capacity to recognize God's Messengers, I did not mean that humans were created as Christians believe, as I believe that humans evolved through the process of evolution, but I believe that God was responsible for setting the process of evolution in motion.

You are correct that most are born influenced by a false message from birth.but that does not mean they cannot change their beliefs. The fact that many people have rejected the false messages and changes their beliefs is proof that people can and do change.

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

I do not have to justify anything that God does, nor does God.
God can never need any excuses because He can never make any mistakes since He is infallible.
Only your imaginary god can ever need excuses. Try to think about what that means.

An omnipotent God ONLY does what He chooses to do. Try to think about why that would be.

God chooses to remain in hiding so that is exactly what He does.

“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

You can complain about that until the day you die but that won't change a thing.
You will just waste your life complaining.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I have objective facts about Baha'u'llah, that is what I have. I just posted this video to an atheist on another forum when he said I have no facts. It is only 10 minutes long.

In science, peer review is a vital part.

In religion, peer review is an anathema, something that God vehemently dislikes.
Baha'u'llah explained why.

“every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: “Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self,” and if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

I have posted this passage to you more than once. Did you even read it and try to understand it?
If you do not read what I post what is the point of having a discussion?
If you read and disagreed with it why can't you respond with a reasoned argument against it?

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.

But God does not want to remove personal biases, that is what YOU want.
See above passage for what God wants.

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.

Independent investigation of truth is the method that is used to discover the objective truth of religion.

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

I do not care about what happens in science because science is different from religion. ANY logical person knows that.

You just ignored my question and changed the subject. That won't work.
You suggested that others should check our work.

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

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.

You are not going to verify that it is the truth by 'checking' with other people since there is no reason to think that they are any better equipped to determine whether Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God than you would be.

But that is not the point. The point is that we are all responsible to God for our own beliefs and that means that have to be OUR BELIEFS, not what someone else believes. God tests us to see who will pass the test and recognize Baha'u'llah. The test is ours alone. God will not accept anyone else's answers. That is what the passage above is saying.

".... if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

I know. What's your point?

Just what I said.
Tiberius said: And stop with your patronizing, "I'm sorry you can't understand this" attitude. The entire scientific community says you are wrong. What is Peer Review? | Wiley

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

So now you say you know that the scientific community does not SAY anything about religion or how to identify a true Messenger of God.

If the scientific community does not say anything how can the scientific community say I am wrong?

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.

I am not mired because I am not stuck. I choose to believe what I believe every day. Every day I meet with new challenges, tests of my faith, and I have to choose whether to keep believing.

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

I never said that the claims of the previous Messengers were wrong, I said that the followers of those religions misinterpreted what those Messengers revealed in scriptures so the followers are wrong.

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 am not going to argue over semantics. Special is just a word and it has more than one meaning.

Special: better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=special+means

The Baha'i Faith is indeed different from the usual and it is different than the older religions but that does not mean it is better or greater.

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.

Only I know what was implied. It was not implied.

Oh please.

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

Why doesn't my belief that different religions were designed for different ages hold water.
Why would one religion be applicable for all ages and if it was which religion would it be?

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.

I can provide a list of which religions were relevant for which time periods. Here it is in a diagram.

 

[Kfox]

Is that all you can do?
Go round and round in circles?

OK You would rather not believe "popular" religions.
In other words, you'd rather people were disbelievers .. or believed some obscure claim.

Not me.

You ask me questions, I give you my opinion. If you don't like my opinions, perhaps you should quit asking questions.

 

[Kfox]

Many people have chosen to believe false messages. So what? Whose fault is that?

You don’t choose what you believe. Belief happens after reason and logic demands it; not before. When the false messenger presents his case in a way someone finds reasonable, logical, and truthful, belief comes naturally.

It is their fault because they choose to believe in the false messages instead of the true messages.

What about those who don’t have access to the true messenger? Not all have access to other religions; are they at fault because they follow the only religion they know?

You are correct that most are born influenced by a false message from birth.but that does not mean they cannot change their beliefs.

Often it does! Most don’t have equal influence from other religions, what little they might hear of other religious comes from those who consider it false doctrine; many don’t have access at all to other religions.

I do not have to justify anything that God does, nor does God.
God can never need any excuses because He can never make any mistakes since He is infallible.
Only your imaginary god can ever need excuses. Try to think about what that means.

Remember who you are talking to. YOU are the only one in this conversation who has an imaginary God

You can complain about that until the day you die but that won't change a thing.
You will just waste your life complaining.

I’m not complaining, I’m just explaining why (assuming he actually exist) I reject your God and don’t consider him good, fair, righteous, and definitely not worthy of worship.

 

[rational experiences]

Logic father first adult man.

Holy natural loving spiritual. Natives prove that status. Human purpose to be like them spiritually meditating living naturally doing no harm.

Looking at native past irradiated imbalanced mind brain now healed by cooling.

Saviour cooling ice newly born gods spirit.

Basic spirituality.

All babies as man uses father's memory. One first adult memory only. First father. Human.

Your newly born baby man thesis fake theism science.

Father logically in consciousness as first is nothing like a theist.

Your fact

You mind designed as men then by mind controlled by men ownership a machine. Fake. Totally fake the idea of your owned machine voice recording transmissions heavens speaking heard. Notice ship is identified in a humans reasoning.

Abnormally after brain irradiated.

So hearing of voice is two. Father's man human conscious living memories. AI all fake man's sciences data plus theisms. You speaking it yourself as you thought it first by man's words first

Dimwitted thinker.

Man's voice feedback garbled. So he says God speaks now and you don't know what he is meaning man is saying. Circular theism. Circulating atmospheric transmitters machines.

Father said you are dimwitted bio chemically. As I heard his answers to your lying brothers life.

I got to hear both. You are in life just a nasty egotist liar. Pretty basic reason why you think you are God the machine and God the machine reactions. As a theist human.

I own myself bodily all cosmic powes as a bio life. Guess what a planet a sun a star... radiation is not biology or blood or bones or not oxygenated by plants.

The law bible was shut sworn oath truth after science attacked us. Bible was no man is God don't name God. Being science.

Satanists took it back. Opened and re theoried science for temple of science rebuilding. Baha'i challenged about Jesus so you murdered him. Scientists.

In many countries elite by trade mind status agreed. In many countries holy brotherhood stopped you.

Two minds of men exist stated in every country on earth. The nasty liar posessed mind or a holy mind.

Reason water evaporation O UFO ark circuit is nation fallout. Life affected on ground changes daily constantly. Why one human race of man is never correct.

A holy agreement was scientific notified first as science was the only wrong human.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Here it is in a diagram.
View attachment 58898

This diagram is faulty. Adam and Noah are missed out. Were they not manifesations of your Allah?

 

[Trailblazer]

You don’t choose what you believe. Belief happens after reason and logic demands it; not before. When the false messenger presents his case in a way someone finds reasonable, logical, and truthful, belief comes naturally.

That makes no sense to me. Why would belief come naturally if a false messenger presented his case in a way someone finds reasonable, logical, and truthful? Anyone who believed a false messenger is true did not do their due diligence. There are ways to differentiate a true messenger from a false messenger. It is really not that difficult to identify a false messenger and there are ways to identify a true Messenger.

What about those who don’t have access to the true messenger? Not all have access to other religions; are they at fault because they follow the only religion they know?

Everyone has access to information about Baha'u'llah on the internet although they might not know about Him. If they did not know about Him that would not be their fault and God will not hold them accountable for not believing. It is the fault of the Baha'is who failed to tell these people. However, if they were told and chose to reject Him and cling instead to their own religions then God will hold them accountable.

Often it does! Most don’t have equal influence from other religions, what little they might hear of other religious comes from those who consider it false doctrine; many don’t have access at all to other religions.

As I just said, they have access to the new religion since it is on the internet but not everyone has heard of it, so that is why the Baha'is are responsible to tell them. But once they know about Him the ball is in their court.

Remember who you are talking to. YOU are the only one in this conversation who has an imaginary God.

I guess you missed my point. A real God can never need any excuses because He is infallible. That means that any god you imagine that needs excuses is imaginary (does not exist).

The God I believe in is not imaginary, He is real, so He needs no excuses.

I’m not complaining, I’m just explaining why (assuming he actually exist) I reject your God and don’t consider him good, fair, righteous, and definitely not worthy of worship.

That sounds like complaining to me, complaining about God because He is not good, fair, righteous, and definitely not worthy of worship.

If that is what you think then bother talking about God? If I did not believe in God I would be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere, especially given the weather we get in Washington at this time of year!

 

[Trailblazer]

This diagram his faulty. Adam and Noah are missed out. Were they not manifesations of your Allah?

The diagram was not for the purpose of showing every single Messenger/Manifestation of God, it just shows the Messengers who are associated with one of the established religions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

However, if they were told and chose to reject Him and cling instead to their own religions then God will hold them accountable.

Mind you, I am not interested in living in the utopian Christian-type Bahai heaven after my death with an ever lasting life. They will not provide me with 72 houris and unlimited supply of booze. The question is what your Allah would do to people who reject Bahaollah?

 

[KWED]

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.

Most religionists believe what they believe because of childhood indoctrination. Few people listen to the music their parents listen to.

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

By "core beliefs" do you mean what individuals have been told about their religion, or what scripture actually says?

 

[KWED]

You want a black and white answer? Wrong.
..in as much as those two are not messengers of G-d.

G-d knows best why they claimed to be.
Lots of people do.

If you accept that some people who claim to be messengers of god are not, by what method do you determine which ones actually are?

 

[KWED]

Many people have chosen to believe false messages. So what? Whose fault is that?
It is their fault because they choose to believe in the false messages instead of the true messages.

And yet they all believe they are following the true message, and they do it with as much conviction and evidence as you do.
Funny that, eh?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Most religionists believe what they believe because of childhood indoctrination. Few people listen to the music their parents listen to.

I’m sorry if that was your experience. But don’t assume it’s universal. Some people love and respect their parents, and are grateful for the guidance and support they received growing up.

I like Louis Armstrong as much as my granddad did btw. And my son likes Led Zeppelin and The Doors as much as I do. That’s not indoctrination; that’s an inheritance worth more than gold.