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

[Trailblazer]

Still one assumption in there, Tb. In order to be assumption-free your statement would have to read
"I believe that Baha''u'llah was evidence for God because I believe Baha’u’llah was God’s Representative on earth".

LOL! It's not that I don't like your beliefs,Tb. Your beliefs are based on the writings of a man in jail in 1844 who thought God spoke to him and wrote God's words down (in17th Century English). I have now read quite a lot of these words; my rational mind will not allow me to give credence to the 'evidence' upon which your faith rests. But YOU like your beliefs, and that is what is important to you. Although, I have to say that you seem quite obsessed with the subject and I feel it's not good for you.

I am asserting nothing.
I believe that your belief is false.
You believe that your belief is true.

Let's see.. Is it like the B.Man saying that God spoke to him, and you saying that this is evidence of something?

Is there a reason that you follow me from thread to thread and criticize me and my beliefs? Why else are you here, given you have nothing to say about the OP I posted and are not replying to it?

It seems to me you are the one who is obsessed, either obsessed about me or about my beliefs. Stop speaking for me and calling me obsessed. You are not qualified to assess the mental status of other people. It is unbecoming of a Christian to behave that way and I see no other Christians on this forum who behave this way, thank God.

Matthew 7:1-4 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

 

[Trailblazer]

"The proof of his own person"
I've been wanting to ask about this, but keep forgetting. You quote this a lot, Tb.
Does it mean that the B.man himself is the proof of his writings? If so, how?
If not, what does it mean?

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

It means that the Manifestation of God (be it Jesus or Baha'u'llah or any other Manifestation of God) can produce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission (that it was a Mission from God) than the proof of His own Person (who He was as a Person). In other words, the proof of who they were was their own Person, who they were, which was demonstrated by what they did on their Mission.

For example, regarding Jesus, who I consider a Manifestation of God:

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ…” Some Answered Questions, p. 101

 

[Trailblazer]

July:

If God existed how could it be proven?

I consider that a long time.

And so what if I start threads about God? After all, this IS a religious forum.

What seems odd to me and my husband also commented on this, is why so many atheists are on a religious forum.

What is even stranger is why so many atheists like to talk about God. Unless someone is holding a gun to their heads, why else would they flock to my threads like bees to honey?

It seems to me that the atheists are getting a whole lot more out of the threads I start than I am getting, since I get nothing but misery. Moreover, I already know that God exists so I don't need threads like this. That is why I don't start them for myself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because the atheists are the ones who say "that's not evidence." (see the OP)

God certainly would be capable of doing that and it even says that God could make everyone a believer in the Baha'i scriptures. It also says why God does not present evidence that will convince everyone.

Why should God do everything that He can do? Why would God do what God does not want to do just because atheists want Him to do it? No atheist has ever been able to answer those questions.

Why shouldn't "He?"
I mean, if we're talking about a God that cares about us at all.
No theist has ever been able to answer this question.

 

[Trailblazer]

SO...

First Premise: A ‘Messenger of God’ cannot exist if there is no God.
Second Premise: MrB. was a Messenger of God

Conclusion: God exists.

Is this what you're saying, Tb?

Why do people talk about my Baha'i beliefs and then blame me for steering the conversation towards my Baha'i beliefs? This is wholly unjust. I answer only because I consider it polite but I have no interest in talking about my Baha'i beliefs.

Now that I have that bit of bookkeeping out of the way...
No, that is not what I was saying.

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true then the conclusion God exists must be true.

(The reason it must be true is because Baha'u'llah declared that God exists, just as Jesus did.)

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

However, since the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God can never be proven, I am not trying to make a logical argument.

 

[samtonga43]

Once you demonstrate that a God exists.....

Demonstrate? How would you envisage the demonstration of God's existence?

 

[Trailblazer]

Why shouldn't "He?"
I mean, if we're talking about a God that cares about us at all.
No theist has ever been able to answer this question.

The question is why should God give people everything they WANT just because they want it? God is not a short order cook.

God gave us what we NEED and most people reject it. That is not on God. It is on the people who reject God's Messengers.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Anyway, so how do you think a universe would fit in within this universe? How would it begin? Will there be another singularity and what would that do to the place you think it would be done?

I am testing the request logically. You probably know that your expectation was not logical or rational so that's why you are trying ad hominem rather than responding logically.

I asked you what axioms in logic you stand with and you have refused to respond several times. So either you dont know what axioms you stand with, or you dont understand it. But you respond with this kind of ad hominem which is to try to address me and my views rather than engage with the argument. I just said that because a lot of people seem to think that ad hominem is insults, which is not necessarily.

The only reason I used that absurd example was to try and demonstrate how illogical it is for you to ask me what specific evidence I would need to believe in a creator being while refusing to give me ANY specifics about this proposed creator being.

But instead of recognizing how illogical your request was - that I can't give you specifics if you won't give me specifics - you want to debate the absurd example. This is clearly a waste of time.

 

[Nimos]

SO...

First Premise: A ‘Messenger of God’ cannot exist if there is no God.
Second Premise: MrB. was a Messenger of God

Conclusion: God exists.

Is this what you're saying, Tb?

Just out of curiosity, since you have tagged yourself as a Christian and seem to question @Trailblazer way of reasoning from what I can see, how do you justify your own belief differently from what she is doing or any other religious person does?

Because that I think would be very interesting to know?

 

[Trailblazer]

You've said something like this a few times. What do you mean by "prove to ourselves" if it doesn't involve proving something as a fact?

By definition religious beliefs can never be facts because they cannot be proven.

fact

something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

fact

However we can prove to ourselves that a religious belief is true and that God exists and in that sense that we know it is true. That is why I say "prove to ourselves."

 

[firedragon]

The only reason I used that absurd example was to try and demonstrate how illogical it is for you to ask me what specific evidence I would need to believe in a creator being while refusing to give me ANY specifics about this proposed creator being.

But instead of recognizing how illogical your request was - that I can't give you specifics if you won't give me specifics - you want to debate the absurd example. This is clearly a waste of time.

Right. So you used that "absurd example" for a different purpose, not for a logical discussion.

Also, you still didnt answer a simple question. Let me cut and paste, for the third time. Lets see if you have any interest at all in any kind of reasonable discussion with reason and logic, not with "other purposes" in mind.

""I asked you what axioms in logic you stand with and you have refused to respond several times. So either you dont know what axioms you stand with, or you dont understand it. ""

 

[Trailblazer]

And no, now you are trying to use a special pleading argument. You don't get to claim that God is different.

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

It is you who does not understand that the God claim is different than any other claim and that is why it is not special pleading.

This is why you do not know. You only believe.

You cannot tell me what I know because you do not know what I know. This is simple logic.

In fact you are making a huge error that should be obvious even to you. You are assuming that a God exists in the first place. Once you demonstrate that a God exists then you may be able to use your methodology, but until you do you only have a circular argument. You have multiple errors in just this one little section.

I do not assume that God exists, I know that God exists because of the evidence.
I do not need to demonstrate that God exists to you, that is not my job. It is your job to demonstrate it to yourself if you want to know.

It seems to bother you that I say I know that God exists. I would ask yourself why it bothers you and if it does not bother you why do you keep trying to correct me? Do I tell you what you know?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Demonstrate? How would you envisage the demonstration of God's existence?

I don't know. It is not my claim. It is hers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

It is you who does not understand that the God claim is different than any other claim and that is why it is not special pleading.

Nope, there is no "God" exception for the special pleading fallacy.

You cannot tell me what I know because you do not know what I know. This is simple logic.

I do not assume that God exists, I know that God exists because of the evidence.
I do not need to demonstrate that God exists to you, that is not my job. It is your job to demonstrate it to yourself if you want to know.

It seems to bother you that I say I know that God exists. I would ask yourself why it bothers you and if it does not bother you why do you keep trying to correct me? Do I tell you what you know?

Yes, but you keep demonstrating that you do not know. Once again, logic is demonstrable. Nor do you seem to understand what evidence is because you have not been able to post any evidence for God. And yes, it bother me when anyone keeps repeating something that appears to be false. I know why it bothers me. I value honesty in a discussion. You appear to have fooled yourself. Your shallow definition of "knowledge" fails. I used a much better source than you did for what is and what is not knowledge. Anyone that knows anything about religion knows that epistemology is a big part of understanding ones beliefs. Unfortunately it tends to turn on them when it comes to the very basis of their beliefs. They are not justified on evidence. I keep trying to tell you that you should base your belief on the strengths of your religion and not its weaknesses. Evidence is a weakness for most religious beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By definition religious beliefs can never be facts because they cannot be proven.

fact

something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

fact

However we can prove to ourselves that a religious belief is true and that God exists and in that sense that we know it is true. That is why I say "prove to ourselves."

How do you "prove to yourself" that which can't be proven?

It seems like you're saying you can do the impossible.

 

[KWED]

No scientist dismisses art, philosophy, and religion as mere intellectual whimsy. Nor does any scientist presume that science is the only 'real' method of obtaining and validating a truth claim. These are common absurdities held by 'scientism' cultists, however.

Ironically, these kinds of flawed, absolutist assertions are just the kind of thing you are complaining about here.

 

[KWED]

I am trying to show you that your example is invalid, and won't work. Its not logical.

You are saying that creating a universe within this universe at some place on earth as a demonstration is up to the creator to decide how, but you are not trying to apply your thinking cap into understanding that its not a logical proposition. Anyway, you won't engage with that because you will never be able to provide your time to think.

So, why is an omnipotent, creator god creating a universe within a universe "not a logical proposition"?

 

[firedragon]

So, why is an omnipotent, creator god creating a universe within a universe "not a logical proposition"?

When you barge into other peoples conversations, do a background study. Try to be a bit logical. If you try, you will succeed.

 

[KWED]

It is you who does not understand that the God claim is different than any other claim and that is why it is not special pleading.

Did you just claim that claiming god is the exception is not special pleading because it is god, and he is the exception?
Genius!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you just claim that claiming god is the exception is not special pleading because it is god, and he is the exception?
Genius!

But she never uses circular reasoning