• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It is no problem for me because I have already demonstrated to myself that "Messengers" establish the existence of God.
What I meant is that I cannot demonstrate it to other people.
I meant that it's a problem for the approach that you suggested: establishing that God exists by establishing that "Messengers of God" really were sent by God.

As far as I can tell, there's no rational way for a person to arrive at belief in your God. Not with the parameters you've put on it, anyhow.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I am going to answer this one first and hopefully I will have time to answer the other one later.
I think what confuses people, is that you seem to argue both for an against yourself at the same time :) Meaning you present some arguments that seem contradictive and will try to elaborate on that based on what you have answered, so will jump a bit around in your reply.

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.

We both agree to this statement being logically correct, based on the claim "That no one can ever prove God".

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.
This is a circular and contradictive statement, based on what we agreed on above.

If no one can prove God, then the Messengers can't provide that proof through any means. Therefore it is contradictory when you then say that we need the messenger to demonstrate God.

This will become circular reasoning, because in order to establish the validity of the Messengers claim, we have to demonstrate God first, because this rely on God being real, if God is not real then obviously they can't be Messengers of God, because he wouldn't exist, but in order to demonstrate God, we need the Messengers, and again to do that we need to demonstrate God and we can keep going like this... This is what circular reasoning is.

So to break this circle, we have to figure out which claim we need to establish first in order to do this. And it makes sense to break it at God, because the messenger rely on him being true.

Therefore we can solve this circular issue, but approaching the claims in the following order:

1. Demonstrate God
2. Demonstrate the claim that these are Messengers of said God.

But we then run into the problem of the statement we agreed on. "That no one can ever prove God". So we can't demonstrate (1.) which means that we won't be able to demonstrate (2.) either.

Which means that we will never be able to provide proof, but we can throw faith into the machine and say that "We have faith that (1.) is true, that God exist." and if that is true, then "We can have faith in (2.) also being true"

That is the furthest you can ever come in this scenario, if you want to get passed circular reasoning and the statement that "No on can ever prove God"

Very important, doesn't mean that these statements ain't true, we simply have no way to verify them as being so. This idea is build into most religious claims and why no one have ever been able to demonstrate any of these claims as being true.

It is not the atheists fault or us being unreasonable, it is a logical trap or what to say, that all religious claims make use of and why they are based on faith. Or said in another way, why they require people to accept certain things without proof, if they do, then this whole setup will make sense.

Exactly as the example of the Aliens, if we elaborate that a bit. If I make the claim that Aliens are true and they are like this and that. The moment you accept that Aliens are true, without me providing you with evidence for them. You can potentially start talking about whether they look like this or that, where they live, did they visit us here on Earth and so forth. Which only make sense when you are no longer asking the question or demanding me to provide proof that these even exist to begin with.

I believe that He did establish the truth of His claim, but of course everyone won’t agree with he.
This can't be the case, its impossible given the statement we agreed on, "That no one can ever proof God", because then he won't be able to establish any truth or it would contradict that statement. You might have faith in it being so, but it is not truth, because it can never be a proof, its simply impossible.

Its like having a circular square, its contradictory and will not work, you can't reason like that. And it has nothing to do with religion, its a logical impossibility.

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.
Yes, but the keyword in what you write is "The way I see it if He was a Messenger of God..." and that is what we want to verify. But we can't, as I explained above. So its irrelevant of whether everything he said is true or not, IF he was in fact a messenger of God or not, because we can't establish that to begin with, because again, we are going to end up in circular reasoning.

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.
But these evidence are weak ones at best and again requires you to start out by accepting something without proof. And that is basically from what I can see, exactly how you "break" the circular reasoning as I pointed out above, you accept that God exist based on faith. But you seek to strengthen this, by focusing on claims that Baha'u'llah made. Sort of in the same way as in my example with the aliens, that you seem to shift to focusing on the color and purpose of them, which is then used to further feed the validity of these aliens being true, because obviously them having color and purpose, are "evidence" for them being true, but there is no foundation for this in the first place, its only because you have faith in the aliens being true.

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.
This is what faith is, that is what this verse calls for, blind faith in God. Of course you are going to believe in my aliens, if you approach it having faith in it being true. The moment you don't have faith in my claim, you won't find the aliens.

Its perfectly fine to believe in God and find value in the teachings of Baha'u'llah, but it shouldn't come at the cost of logical reasoning. And it doesn't matter whether its religion or something else. Im not trying to convince you that you shouldn't believe or even have faith, but you have to be logical consistent or you will end up trapping yourself in circular reasoning without being able to get passed it.
 
Last edited:

night912

Well-Known Member
I did not say that God didn't care. I said that God does not need our belief, but that does not mean that God does not want us to believe in Him. God wants us to believe in Him but only if it is by choice, not because He convinced us to believe in Him.
Then your God does not want us to believe in him. We don't choose what we believe in.

The evidence I am always referring to, the Messengers of God.
And since those are bot evidence........

The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence.
And there's your answer, there is no evidence.

While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.
And there's no way of knowing that those are messengers of God since there's no evidence of God's existence.

God is Spirit, not a physical entity, so God cannot be observed or measured; so how could evidence for God ever be like evidence for the Moon or anything else in the physical world?
So what is the evidence for the existence of the dementors from Harry Potter?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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 arc hair : a branch of learning

Definition of KNOWLEDGE
It is so sad when one tries to use a dictionary and fails.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
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?
The concept of Brahman itself is the Hindu part. The other part is 'dharma' (duties, that is karma too). Are we fulfilling our duties? Righteous action is a duty. I strongly stand for that. 'Dharma' (fulfillment of our duties in all circumstances) is the base of Hinduism.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Great! This guy is called Inri Cristo:

images


He claims to be Jesus Christ reincarnated.
What evidence do you have he is a con man?
Alhumdulillah, he does not wear a crown of thorns.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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

Your beliefs failing even that abuse of a dictionary definition. This is a very short video that explains knowledge as applied to a religion:

 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Wrong person mate.

You didn't mean to quoted me?

Edit
How you commented/quoted me looked like you were correcting me (and trailblazer). Since you replied, than I figure you knew what TB was in relation to CGs reply.

I caught it now but still at a lost to why I was quoted in all cases since I was never in their conversation.
 
Last edited:

night912

Well-Known Member
It is not about God's abilities. How can humans verify God if God does not want to be verified?

Verify
1. to prove the truth of, as by evidence or testimony; confirm; substantiate


So there is no evidence or testimony for the existence of God. Got it. :thumbsup:
 

PureX

Veteran Member
This has absolutely nothing to do with science.

It has nothing to do with philosophical materialism either - it's just basic logic.
It's the 'logic' of a philosophical materialist paradigm. A failed philosophical paradigm. But you can't see this because you are looking out from within that failed paradigm and seeking only to defend it.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It's the 'logic' of a philosophical materialist paradigm. A failed philosophical paradigm. But you can't see this because you are looking out from within that failed paradigm and seeking only to defend it.

I think you will have to explain what you mean by philosophical and methodological to this gentleman PureX.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Practically every minute of every hour of every day, but like @firedragon I think that atheists are illogical and I cannot work with illogic, it drives me nuts.

Then what's the point of the OP if that's what you already believe about atheists?

I was not implying that atheists are illogical because they don't believe in God. I was only referring to the evidence for God's existence. I think that atheists are illogical because they expect to have verifiable evidence that God exists. How could God ever be verified to exist? Or they want empirical evidence, but nobody has ever seen God. Do you see the problem?
That's not illogical. What's illogical is saying that God can't be verify, then say that there is evidence for God. It's illogical because evidence verifies that something exist. So you're contradicting yourself when you say that God can't be verify but then say that you have evidence for God's existence.
 
Top