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

[Tiberius]

Who else would provide the evidence for the claim if not the claimant?

Literally anyone else.

If I could really turn into a dragon, do you think that only I could ever be the source of evidence for that claim? What about all the people who witness the transformation?

If a man claimed to get messages from God how could anyone else provide evidence for that claim?

They can't, that's the problem.

You should be suspicious of such a claim but if the evidence either supports the claim or it does not support the claim.

You put an "if" in this setnence, and then failed to pay it off.

But can you actually support your claim by turning into a fire breathing dragon?

As I have said numerous times, the claim is not the evidence. If you claim that you can turn into a fire breathing dragon then you need evidence that supports that claim.

Yes, I provided the evidence to support the claim in post 5547.

 

[Tiberius]

His own Self, who He was, His character (His qualities).
That can be determined by reading about Him in books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

And what is it about his own self that serves as evidence that he was a Messenger from God?

His Revelation, what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause).
That can be determined by reading about His mission in books such as the following:
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

And what is it that he did that serves as evidence that he was a Messenger from God?

Regarding His Revelation, please read this post:

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

A vague thing from the Bible that says "Good people do good things, that's how you can tell they're good people" is basic and easily manipulated. Bad people can do some good things so people will think they are good and so take advantage of those people.

 

[Tiberius]

I am making no claims, Baha'u'llah made the claims. Nevertheless, I have explained what the evidence is that supports His claims. If you do not like that evidence that is not my problem. It is what it is.

Yeah, you are making claims.

And your evidence does not withstand any actual scrutiny.

 

[samtonga43]

I am making no claims, Baha'u'llah made the claims. Nevertheless, I have explained what the evidence is that supports His claims. If you do not like that evidence that is not my problem. It is what it is.

Tb tells us that…
1. The Writings are not the evidence. (Note the bold emphasis).
2. MrB told us in his writings what the evidence is that supports his claims.

Question: Where IS the OBJECTIVE evidence?
Answer: In the writings, or in someone else’s writings.
But the writings are not the evidence.
Question: Where IS the OBJECTIVE evidence?
Answer: In the writings, or in someone else’s writings.
But the writings are not the evidence.

.
.
.
And so on, ad nauseam.

 

[Trailblazer]

Question: Where IS the OBJECTIVE evidence?
Answer: In the writings, or in someone else’s writings.
But the writings are not the evidence.
Question: Where IS the OBJECTIVE evidence?
Answer: In the writings, or in someone else’s writings.
But the writings are not the evidence.

The writings are not the evidence but we read about the evidence in books (writings).... ever heard of those?
How do you think anyone can know what the evidence is if they do not read about it? They cannot find out any other way except by talking to people, but that is not the best way because there is no way to know the person you are talking to knows what they are talking about.

Case in point: How do you know anything about God or Jesus? You read it in someone else’s writings, in a book called the Bible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course, if the writings are not the evidence, then she has quite a problem, and I can't wait to see how she handles it.

I have no problem because I can think logically.

The writings are not the evidence but we read about the evidence in books (writings)....

How do you think anyone can know what the evidence is if they do not read about it? They cannot find out any other way except by talking to people, but that is not the best way because there is no way to know the person you are talking to knows what they are talking about.

Case in point: How do anyone can know anything about God or Jesus? We read it in writings, in a book called the Bible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Literally anyone else.

Why would 'anyone else' be better able to present the evidence for the claim than the claimant?

Case in point: I claim to have a new red car so I am the claimant. I know I have a new red car. I am the one who can present the evidence for the claim, which is the new red car, since I am the one who has the new red car.

Maybe I told Joe that I have a new red car but if he told you I have a new red car why would you believe him? Only I have the evidence to prove that I have the new red car because I am the one who has the new red car.

If I could really turn into a dragon, do you think that only I could ever be the source of evidence for that claim? What about all the people who witness the transformation?

If people actually witnessed the transformation that would be evidence to them that your claim to be able to turn into a dragon is a true claim but how would that be evidence to anyone else?

Thousands of people witnessed the martyrdom of the Bab and a miracle was believed to have taken place. The martyrdom was written about in newspapers of that time and is now recorded in books and articles. You can read about that and it might constitute evidence for you that the Bab was a Messenger of God. However, you cannot witness it yourself, so you would have to 'believe' what others wrote.

They can't, that's the problem.

It is a problem for you and people like you, but it is not a problem for those of us who have looked at the evidence that led us to believe the claim is true.

You put an "if" in this sentence, and then failed to pay it off.

The "if" did not belong there, it was a typo. It should have read as follows:
You should be suspicious of such a claim but the evidence either supports the claim or it does not support the claim.

Yes, I provided the evidence to support the claim in post 5547.

What you wrote claiming to be a giant, fire-breathing dragon is not evidence, not anymore than what Baha'ullah wrote claiming to be a Messenger of God is evidence that supports the claim.

Baha'u'llah made claims in His Writings. Otherwise there would be NO WAY for anyone to know who He was claiming to be. This is logic 101 stuff.

However, the claims in His Writings ARE NOT the evidence that support His claims.

The evidence is as follows:

1. His own Self, who He was, His character (His qualities)

2. His Revelation, what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)

3. His Writings are additional evidence because they show who He was as a person, what He taught about God and other things, and what accomplished on His mission.

How many times do I have to repeat this for you to finally understand it? I cannot do this much longer. You are either going to understand what I am saying or not. Thus far there is no indication that you are understanding.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what is it about his own self that serves as evidence that he was a Messenger from God?

And what is it that he did that serves as evidence that he was a Messenger from God?

That is something you have to determine for yourself, but you cannot make that determination without reading about Baha'u'llah and what He did on His mission. Otherwise you'd be flying blind.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, you are making claims.

I am making no claims since I have nothing to claim.

And your evidence does not withstand any actual scrutiny.

It does not withstand YOUR scrutiny but it does does mean it does not withstand ANY actual scrutiny.

 

[samtonga43]

The writings are not the evidence but we read about the evidence in books (writings)

Question: Where IS the OBJECTIVE evidence?
Answer: In the writings, or in someone else’s writings.
But the writings are not the evidence.

How do you think anyone can know what the evidence is if they do not read about it?

Reading about what someone else says will not produce objective evidence.

They cannot find out any other way except by talking to people, but that is not the best way because there is no way to know the person you are talking to knows what they are talking about.

Very true.

Case in point: How do you know anything about God or Jesus?

The Holy Spirit guides me.

 

[ppp]

The Holy Spirit guides me.

Does the Holy Spirit guide everyone who thinks the Holy Spirits guides them?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Atheism is not a claim or belief it requires no answers.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God or higher beings. It is a belief. A belief that is in fact, dependent on the idea that there is the possibility of a God or higher being. It's an oxymoron and contradiction of itself.

It's everything.

If it's a new element, smaller than quarks and muons, something that should be included on the standard model, I would say you would have to ask the fellas over at the super colliders and define the atomic mass to them and request if they could begin keeping an eye out for it. When they detect your 'everything particle' that would be sufficient evidence for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God or higher beings. It is a belief. A belief that is in fact, dependent on the idea that there is the possibility of a God or higher being. It's an oxymoron and contradiction of itself.



If it's a new element, smaller than quarks and muons, something that should be included on the standard model, I would say you would have to ask the fellas over at the super colliders and define the atomic mass to them and request if they could begin keeping an eye out for it. When they detect your 'everything particle' that would be sufficient evidence for me.

Incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That is not the same as believing that they do not exist. A lack of belief is not a belief. Now some atheists do believe that there is no god or gods, but that is not a requirement.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That is not the same as believing that they do not exist. A lack of belief is not a belief. Now some atheists do believe that there is no god or gods, but that is not a requirement.

Why would an atheist be on a religion forum, unless there was something they needed to say regarding the matter? A disbelief would be represented in action, by an ignoring of the matter altogether. I have friends who are of that mindset, and they do not claim atheist. They claim to, "Not give a f-word". You believe what you will though.

 

[ppp]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God or higher beings. It is a belief. A belief that is in fact, dependent on the idea that there is the possibility of a God or higher being. It's an oxymoron and contradiction of itself.

Hi! All of those statements are false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would an atheist be on a religion forum, unless there was something they needed to say regarding the matter? A disbelief would be represented in action, by an ignoring of the matter altogether. I have friends who are of that mindset, and they do not claim atheist. They claim to, "Not give a f-word". You believe what you will though.

Why not? That is a rather strange question. You may be totally ignorant about the abuses of religions in various countries. Most atheists try to reason rationally. Most theists, though not all, do not try to reason rationally.

And once again, a lack of belief is not a belief. Why the hostility?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Does the Holy Spirit guide everyone who thinks the Holy Spirits guides them?

No.

 

[samtonga43]

Does the Holy Spirit guide everyone who thinks the Holy Spirits guides them?

I have no idea.

 

[samtonga43]

Why not? That is a rather strange question. You may be totally ignorant about the abuses of religions in various countries. Most atheists try to reason rationally. Most theists, though not all, do not try to reason rationally.

How do you know that, "Most theists do not try to reason rationally"?

 

[samtonga43]

Case in point: I claim to have a new red car so I am the claimant. I know I have a new red car. I am the one who can present the evidence for the claim, which is the new red car, since I am the one who has the new red car. Maybe I told Joe that I have a new red car but if he told you I have a new red car why would you believe him? Only I have the evidence to prove that I have the new red car because I am the one who has the new red car.

You tell us that God delivered a spoken message to MrB. Why would we believe you?