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

[Trailblazer]

Remember back at the beginning of the thread when you asked what atheists would need for evidence?

... so why are you now complaining about atheists telling you what they would need for evidence?

Who is complaining?

 

[Trailblazer]

No, you believe that there is a God.

No, I know. You cannot tell me what I know because you are not me.

Confirming that you only have a belief. "Proving" to yourself does not mean that you proved God's existence. And if you actually did so you could tell others how you did so.

It does not confirm any such thing. I know God exists but HOW I know is not anything you could ever understand since it involves God.

And when you do so others will correct you.

Go ahead. I know what is true and false so I don’t care.

This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. When it comes to a discussion or debate that is a very bad sign.

I have no burden whatsoever. The atheists are the ones who are shifting the burden onto me because it is their responsibility to investigate and prove to themselves that the religion is true or false.

I know it is crazy, but we hope that you will see your errors.

I also hope you atheist will see your errors but I am not holding my breath.

Because rational beliefs are supported by evidence. It is just that simple. If you cannot find proper evidence then your belief is probably not rational.

I have proper evidence. I am sorry you cannot recognize it for what it is. Few people do.

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.

 

[firedragon]

TB?

Not Tuberculosis. @Trailblazer

 

[Trailblazer]

Sometimes one does not have to openly say things.

Yes they have to say them before other make assumptions about what they think.
I do not like Baha'u'llah, I revere Him, but that is different.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not Tuberculosis. @Trailblazer

Thanks.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I know what is true and false so I don’t care.
The atheists are the ones who are shifting the burden onto me because it is their responsibility to investigate and prove to themselves that the religion is true or false.

We have a story in India about a Mawlānā and a Jāt (people generally involved in agriculture and dairying, probably ancient migrants from Nuristan or Mekran).

A jat was carrying a cot on his head. The poetic type Mawlānā quipped in perfect rhyme "Jāt Re jāt, tere sir par khāt - Jāt, O Jāt, a cot on your head". The Jāt, though not poetic, was not one not to respond. He said "Mullā Re Mullā, tere sir par pāt" - Mawlānā, O Mawlānā, (faltered there as he could not think of something that rhymed, but then declared) a grinding stone on your head". The Mawlānā complained that it did not rhyme. The Jāt replied "I do not care if it rhymes or not, but you will be crushed by the weight".

So, when you have no answer, just say that it is your belief and you need not show any reason, and with that the discussion is dead. Nice strategy.

Atheists have no burden. They have rejected burdens by rejecting God.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, worries can see you are already in a heated debate here, so you don't have to reply to it .

I am going to answer this one first and hopefully I will have time to answer the other one later.

Agree, but in order for us to be able to do that, doesn't he first have to establish the truth of his claim? Because otherwise we are not really working with anything tangible right?

Sort of like you and me having a discussion about the color of someone's car, but haven't even establishing that this person even own a car to begin with. And when we finally realize that and ask about it, he/she answers that they won't tell. Then why would be bother discussing the color then?

I believe that He did establish the truth of His claim, but of course everyone won’t agree with he.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

We can only look at individual claims. If I made the following claims and we could somehow verify them as being true:

1. Cats loves me.
2. Dogs loves me.
3. Horses loves me.

Does that mean that, if I make a claim that "Pigs loves me" is also true?

The obvious answer is no, each claim has to be verified as being true or false. So when Baha'u'llah claim that there is only one God, then we have to verify that. Exactly as we would have to verify that he is a messenger of God. And all the claims he makes we would have to verify individually.

And even if we could verify a lot of these, does still not mean that he is a messenger of God until that itself have been verified as being true.

I do not see it that way. The way I see it if He was a Messenger of God every claim He made is automatically true, and one reason I say that is because I believe that Messengers of God are also Manifestations of God and Manifestations of God are infallible. That means whatever they say is as if God said it Himself. That is based upon my belief in Divine Unity, which means that the Manifestation of God perfectly represents the Will of God.

“The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 167

Exactly, which is why we call it faith. People have faith in Jesus, God and the bible as being true. But it is based on faith, which means that it lacks knowledge. I have said it before, but will do it again. You only need faith when you don't have knowledge, otherwise there is no need for faith.

In the sense that nobody can “know” that God exists as a fact some faith is required to believe in God, but it can be an evidence-based faith. Moreover, I can have knowledge about Baha’u’llah and since He is a mirror image of God that is akin to having knowledge about God. I mean we can know God’s attributes because they are reflected in the Manifestation of God, although we can never know the Essence of God.

This is where I believe you take a wrong approach. Proof, knowledge and "truth" are connected, if I can prove to you that something is a particular way, I need to have so much knowledge about it, that it is without a doubt the best possible explanation there is and therefore we refer to it as being true (not absolute). That is basically what a proof gives us, right.

I agree that proof, knowledge and "truth" are connected and I believe I have so much knowledge about Baha’u’llah that it is without a doubt the best possible explanation there is, and therefore I refer to it as being true

And if your proof is good or valid then that will convince pretty much everyone, because when tested it will keep confirming what you say.

I disagree with that. Just because proof is good or valid that does not mean it will convince everyone because most people have too many veils that prevent them from seeing the proof as proof.

If I told you that aliens are real, because I can prove it to myself, then its not really worth anything, because if you don't agree and have no way of verifying my claim, then you can't confirm my proof, its impossible.

And therefore you would be correct in saying that I do not have proof of aliens, but merely have a belief that they are true. But this is not a representation of the actual truth, because either aliens exist or they don't. Its not like aliens exists for me, but not for you.

But there is a way for others to verify what I have proven to myself, by going through the same investigation I went through. In the Baha’i Faith that is called independent investigation of truth.

You are correct, it’s not like aliens exist for me, but not for you. Aliens either exist or not. Likewise, in reality God either exists or not and what people believe about that does not change reality.

I don't think that is correct. As I said just above with the example of the car and we do it again.

You make the claim that someone's car is red, and to that I answer, this person haven't even demonstrated that he has a car, so it doesn't matter what color it might be. And to that you reply, it is red, if you simply listen to what this person have said about it, then its obviously red!!

Do you see the issue here? Baha'u'llah need to demonstrate that the God he is talking about is even real, before it makes sense to talk about whether he is a messenger or not. Its jumping over the whether or not he has a "car" to begin with, you simply assume that he does and what he is saying proves that it is red, and given that it is red, that proves that he own a car.

God cannot ever be demonstrated to be real without the Messenger since the Messenger is the only proof that God is real. Do you see the problem? First we have to verify that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger and then if we believe that then we know whatever He said about God is true. No, we should not assume that God is real just because Baha’u’llah said so, first we have to confirm that He was a Messenger of God.

I agree, evidence can point to different things and even several things at once at the same time. But it still doesn't change that Baha'u'llah can't provide evidence for his claim of there being only one God or even one to begin with, given that you don't believe this is possible for anyone.

So from this we should be able to agree on the following, that absolutely no amount of evidence will ever result in him being able to proof that his claim is correct about God. Which means that it will natural follow that it is also impossible to establish that he is a messenger of God. And therefore we won't be able to prove it, so it has to be based on faith.

I can agree that it is impossible to ‘establish’ that He is a Messenger of God because it that could be established it would be a fact, not a belief. Yes. A certain amount of faith is necessary to believe, but it can be an evidence-based faith. I also believe that God wants it to be this way, faith being required, and that is why God does not provide absolute proof o f His existence. I am sorry atheists don’t like that but I am not in charge of these things.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

I love that verse, and it explains why God does not provide proof, because if we had proof we would not need faith. I believe that the reward for those who earnestly seek Him is that we get the evidence we need in order to know He exists.

Wouldn't you say that this is how it would logically make sense, given the criteria that you have put forward, that no one can ever prove God?

Yes, I think it makes logical sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I know. You cannot tell me what I know because you are not me.

This is incorrect. Knowledge is demonstrable. If you cannot demonstrate it all you have is a mere belief. You may believe that you know, but your failure here refutes that.

It does not confirm any such thing. I know God exists but HOW I know is not anything you could ever understand since it involves God.

No, once again that is a mere belief until you can demonstrate that such a God exists. A strong belief does not mean that you know.

Go ahead. I know what is true and false so I don’t care.

I have no burden whatsoever. The atheists are the ones who are shifting the burden onto me because it is their responsibility to investigate and prove to themselves that the religion is true or false.

I also hope you atheist will see your errors but I am not holding my breath.

I have proper evidence. I am sorry you cannot recognize it for what it is. Few people do.

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.

Wow! All that you do is repeat all of your old failures here.

Why are you still focusing on the weakest part of your faith? As I said that all but guarantees a loss. Why don't you focus on the strengths of your belief?

 

[Trailblazer]

Atheists have no burden. They have rejected burdens by rejecting God.

There is some truth to that statement.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is incorrect. Knowledge is demonstrable. If you cannot demonstrate it all you have is a mere belief. You may believe that you know, but your failure here refutes that.

No, once again that is a mere belief until you can demonstrate that such a God exists. A strong belief does not mean that you know.

I know what I know and you cannot do anything about it but keep saying I don't know and then coming down on me with the usual criticisms, saying I am a failure and calling me illogical.

This is not my first rodeo. I have heard the same things from atheists for nine years and that is why I know how to respond to them so easily. I can respond to an atheist in my sleep. After a while it gets really boring but it is just like water off a duck's back. I wonder why it bothers some atheists when I say I know and why it is so important for them to try to prove that I don't know. They get so bent out of shape and meanwhile I am as cool as a cucumber.

All knowledge is not demonstrable, you are wrong about that.

Definition of knowledge

1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding

c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition

d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned

2 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

b archaic : a branch of learning

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

 

[Aupmanyav]

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. ..

Circular reasoning.

 

[Trailblazer]

Circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

So if the premise: “Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation" is true.

Then the conclusion: Baha'ullah was a Messenger of God because of His own Self and because of His Revelation must be true.

 

[PureX]

And what is the effective difference?

The effective difference is the desire for honesty, and accuracy. Sadly, a difference to which many in the cult of scientism are oblivious.

Either way the audience rejects the claim because it isn't shown to be true.

No, YOU reject it as untrue. A more honest and clear-thinking man simply regards it as an unproven possibility. Which is exactly what it is.

Whatever word or phrase you prefer to use the net result is: the claim isn't shown to be true.

Like I said, those who have succumbed to the cult of scientific atheism are oblivious of the significance of honesty and clarity in the pursuit of truth. They are only interested in shoring up their materialist bias.

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

Fools and their rules: always blinding themselves to the intent by obsessing over the alliteration. I can't help but notice a similarity with the inerrant Bible cultists, here.

Let's note that some claim being true is irrelevant. This is about what can be established.

Bingo! And therein lies the path to self-deception. The truth no longer becomes relevant, and overcoming our preconceived bias becomes the requirement of any truth claim. But of course, our preconceived biases have no intention of ever being overcome. Especially as our egos defend them, relentlessly, and regardless of their validity.

Not very "scientific", any of this, is it.

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

"Descriptions of reality" are metaphysical. The mechanisms of cognition are physical, but the ideological results are metaphysical. Philosophical materialists refuse to acknowledge this. And this is the failure of philosophical materialism: that it cannot recognize its own source.

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.

"Objectivity" is a bias.

 

[Nimos]

Works perfectly well for me. Advaita - non-duality for all things in the universe - energy, atoms, molecules and larger aggregations. So a grain of sand is atoms, and so is a cockroach or myself (or even you). No God required.
That is why Hindu scriptures said 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman) and 'Tat twam asi' (So are you). Brahman / energy being the substrate of all that we perceive or do not perceive.
You may read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_atheism

Interesting, thanks for that.

So what does the Hindu part add then, is that the karma part or what? I couldn't really figure that out from that link?

 

[Koldo]

If I perform a miracle today you would simply embrace my claim that I am the creator being billions of years ago?

No. There was no mention of anything like that though. This is why you need to be specific on what you mean by 'creator being'.

 

[ratiocinator]

A more honest and clear-thinking man simply regards it as an unproven possibility. Which is exactly what it is.

Just like leprechauns, the Lock Ness monster, alien abductions, etc., etc.,etc.

Like I said, those who have succumbed to the cult of scientific atheism are oblivious of the significance of honesty and clarity in the pursuit of truth. They are only interested in shoring up their materialist bias.

This has absolutely nothing to do with science. It's basic logic. Somebody making a claim has the burden of proof. If they fail to provide any reason to take their idea seriously, then nobody who is rational will take it seriously. Of course, if it's unfalsifiable (as most god claims are), then it remains possible but it is no better than a blind guess.

Philosophical materialists refuse to acknowledge this.

It has nothing to do with philosophical materialism either - it's just basic logic.

"Objectivity" is a bias.

A bias towards wanting to distinguish between the probably true and empty assertion, blind faith, what somebody wants to believe, and guessing.

 

[Koldo]

Because you have physical eyes whereby you can see the moon.

The simple answer is because God does not choose to do that and God ONLY does what He chooses to do. (There is a good reason why God does not make it clear but I am on the run so I don't have time to explain it right now.)

“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

Do you agree that God could, if he wanted, grant me spiritual eyes that would allow me to see him in a similar manner that I can see the moon with my physical eyes? And that doing so would not violate my free will since granting me physical eyes doesn't?

 

[Koldo]

No, that is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is to assume that he is a con man if you have no evidence of any con.

Great! This guy is called Inri Cristo:

He claims to be Jesus Christ reincarnated.
What evidence do you have he is a con man?

 

[firedragon]

No. There was no mention of anything like that though. This is why you need to be specific on what you mean by 'creator being'.

Do you understand what a "being" is first?

 

[Koldo]

Do you understand what a "being" is first?

Something that exists.