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

[Trailblazer]

You are trying to rig the game so you can cheat your way out of criticism. You can't make openly false assertions like this and think you help your credibility, nor make you false assertions true.

As I already told you, this is not a game, and I am not trying to win anything. Only arrogant people need to win arguments.

Then skilled thinkers are the people you should be listening to, yet you don't like our assessments, so you dismiss the very advice you post here. You can't have it both ways.

Skilled thinkers? Do you mean people like you? You don't think too highly of yourself do you?

It is incredible that anyone would even post this on a forum, as if arrogance is something to be proud of.
What makes you a more skilled thinker than anyone else? Did you go to college and get a degree in skilled thinking?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I mean I have proven it is true to myself so I believe it is true.

So you do think you've proven it?

Earlier, you said that God's existence couldn't be proven, though.

I realize it and others don't because they have not done the same investigation I have done, but even if they did the same investigation that does not mean they would believe as I do because all people view the evidence differently.

Sure, but a rational consideration of the evidence either supports the conclusion or it doesn't. Given one set of evidence and two mutually exclusive conclusions, one side or the other (or both) is being irrational.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I ask again, how do we know who the Messengers of God are and who are the fakers?
And how do we know said Messengers of God have "divine minds" and "are not using human intellect and logic?" How does that even work?

You use your intellectual abilities to investigate the claims of the Messenger and what backs up His claims. If you decide that the claims are true then you accept everything He wrote, which is quite extensive.

This just looks like a giant pile of claims with no evidence backing them up.

There is evidence that backs up the claims of Baha'u'llah. Some time ago when asked for evidence I posted the claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah on this thread:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

And what kind of God would set up the world in this way? No God I'm interested in following. If I can't use the logic and reason that this God supposedly gave me since I can't actually use it to find and learn about God, then it sounds to me like this God is kind of a fool.

I never said that you cannot use logic and reason, you should always use logic and reason. God wants us all to use logic and reason and that is why were were created with a rational mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you do think you've proven it?

Earlier, you said that God's existence couldn't be proven, though.

I have proven it to myself. I cannot prove it to other people.

What I said earlier is that God's existence cannot be proven as a fact that everyone will accept.

Sure, but a rational consideration of the evidence either supports the conclusion or it doesn't. Given one set of evidence and two mutually exclusive conclusions, one side or the other (or both) is being irrational.

It is true that one side or the other is wrong, but that does not mean one side or the other is being irrational because all people are different in how they view the evidence and that will determine the conclusions they come to.

People make choices based upon their desires and preferences which come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and life circumstances, so it does not necessarily mean a person is irrational just because they do not recognize what is true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have proven it to myself. I cannot prove it to other people.

What I said earlier is that God's existence cannot be proven as a fact that everyone will accept.

I'm trying to separate two different issues:

- is the claim proven... i.e. does a rational consideration of all relevant evidence and facts necessarily lead to the conclusion that the claim is true?
- can people be convinced that the claim is true?

It is true that one side or the other is wrong, but that does not mean one side or the other is being irrational because all people are different in how they view the evidence and that will determine the conclusions they come to.

No, it does mean they're being irrational.

If you've proven that God exists, then any person starting with the same set of evidence you have and using logical deduction would necessarily come to the same conclusion you did.

If you and them come to different conclusions based on the same evidence, then either you or them (or both, I guess) has something irrational in their thought process.

People make choices based upon their desires and preferences which come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and life circumstances, so it does not necessarily mean a person is irrational just because they do not recognize what is true.

It would mean that they have made a mistake in judgment - i.e. been irrational - about at least one thing in their logical inferences from the evidence.

If different people can start with the same evidence and come to mutually exclusive but equally valid conclusions without any mistakes in their logic, then you must be wrong when you say you've proven the claim as true for yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

With all due respect your analogy using magical pixies is dorky and it only makes atheists look silly when they compare God, the Creator of the Universe, with imaginary characters such as this or others like tooth fairies..

With all due respect it demonstrates PERFECTLY just how 'dorky' your own claim is. There is EXACTLY as much reason to believe in my dorky magical pixies as there is to believe in your dorky creator god. The ONLY argument you have is a blatant example of SPECIAL PLEADING (you got an A+ in logic? LOL from your reasoning here I'd say it was closer to an F) and that logical fallacy can be used by my magical pixies JUST AS EFFECTIVELY.

Personal attacks is not going to help your case.

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

That is exactly what you are doing when you ignore that God is a special case and equate the Creator God to magical pixies and tooth fairies.

So I guess I understand why you 'pretend' to not understand analogies and think that you can use special pleading in order to use a logical fallacy. You're clearly embarrassed that your special god being is no more reasonable than the tooth fairy and you're desperate to pretend otherwise.

Embarrassed? I am not the one who should be embarrassed.

And you wonder why God does not provide evidence to prove He exists. It is precisely because people like you who poke fun of God are unworthy of knowing that God exists. But guess who is in the driver's seat? It ain't you, and it does not matter one iota what you disbelieve because disbelief does not make anything true.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Personal attacks is not going to help your case.

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

That is exactly what you are doing when you ignore that God is a special case and equate the Creator God to magical pixies and tooth fairies.

Embarrassed? I am not the one who should be embarrassed.

And you wonder why God does not provide evidence to prove He exists. It is precisely because people like you who poke fun of God are unworthy of knowing that God exists. But guess who is in the driver's seat? It ain't you, and it does not matter one iota what you disbelieve because disbelief does not make anything true.

That is exactly what you are doing when you ignore that God is a special case and equate the Creator God to magical pixies and tooth fairies.

That is exactly what you are doing when you ignore that magical pixies are a special case and equate the magical pixies to a Creator God and tooth fairies.

If you're not embarrassed you should be... pretending like you don't understand analogies just because you can't refute them... continually using a logical fallacy and then claiming that you've reached your conclusions using logic.

See how your argument works JUST AS WELL for me? It works for ANY fantastical claim, thus making it ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS as an argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm trying to separate two different issues:

- is the claim proven... i.e. does a rational consideration of all relevant evidence and facts necessarily lead to the conclusion that the claim is true?
- can people be convinced that the claim is true?

The answer is yes on both questions but that does not mean that everyone will be convinced that it is true because how people view all relevant evidence and facts is subjective.

No, it does mean they're being irrational.

If you've proven that God exists, then any person starting with the same set of evidence you have and using logical deduction would necessarily come to the same conclusion you did.

If you and them come to different conclusions based on the same evidence, then either you or them (or both, I guess) has something irrational in their thought process.

I do not like to label people irrational because there are many reasons why everyone won’t be able to come to the same conclusions I did – people are all different.

However, I think you are onto something because Baha’u’llah wrote that everyone has the capacity to recognize the signs of God so that would imply that they are not thinking rationally if they do not recognize those signs.

“I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that 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?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

“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, pp. 105-106

It would mean that they have made a mistake in judgment - i.e. been irrational - about at least one thing in their logical inferences from the evidence.

Yes, I fully agree, given what I just said above.

If different people can start with the same evidence and come to mutually exclusive but equally valid conclusions without any mistakes in their logic, then you must be wrong when you say you've proven the claim as true for yourself.

No, I do not think I am wrong. I think that atheists make many mistakes in logic and that is the primary reason they cannot come to a belief in God, although you are a notable exception because you reason logically.

I am not implying that everyone who believes in God reasons logically because people believe in God for all sorts of reasons and many are emotional, but to be a Baha’i you have to reason logically because it is a religion that makes logical sense.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is exactly what you are doing when you ignore that God is a special case and equate the Creator God to magical pixies and tooth fairies.

That is exactly what you are doing when you ignore that magical pixies are a special case and equate the magical pixies to a Creator God and tooth fairies.

If you're not embarrassed you should be... pretending like you don't understand analogies just because you can't refute them... continually using a logical fallacy and then claiming that you've reached your conclusions using logic.

See how your argument works JUST AS WELL for me? It works for ANY fantastical claim, thus making it ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS as an argument.

As I just said to @9-10ths_Penguin, I think the primary reason that atheists cannot believe in God is because they are illogical. He helped me to see that so I thank him for that. I cannot reason with people who are illogical.

Right out the door what you say is illogical because there is evidence for God's existence whereas there is no evidence for the existence of magical pixies and tooth fairies. The fact that you do not LIKE the evidence that God provides is moot. It is still the evidence.

Another logical error atheists make is whenever they say the omniscient God made a mistake and God should have done something differently to accommodate their needs. NOTHING in the world could be more illogical because no human can know more than the all-knowing God who created humans about what humans need to believe in God, which means that however God provided evidence of His existence was in accordance with human needs.

Another logical error atheists make is when they say the God is omnipotent so God should give me what I want. NOTHING could be more illogical. Omnipotence implies God is all-powerful so God could give you what you want but omnipotence also implies that God only does what God chooses to do became nobody can tell God what to do. Logically speaking, that means you will only get what you want if God chooses to give it to you.

 

[Segev Moran]

No, I do not mean that God expects us to do anything for Him.
I meant that God expects (desires) us to do something for ourselves, for our own benefit. God has no needs of His own.

It doesn't make sense that God expects us to do something for ourselves.
What kind of things as an example?

 

[Trailblazer]

It doesn't make sense that God expects us to do something for ourselves.
What kind of things as an example?

Why doesn't that make sense to you?
God wants us to follow the teachings and laws of the Messenger that He sends. Those are numerous.

 

[Segev Moran]

Why doesn't that make sense to you?

What do you mean when you say "expect"? it doesn't seem like a valid option for a timeless being.

God wants us to follow the teachings and laws of the Messenger that He sends. Those are numerous.

Actually, not really.
It wants us to understand what was behind those laws and surely not follow them to their literal words.
I am sure you were not expecting that all those laws will be enforced on us today. this will be a very scary world to live in.
God gave us the base rules. all others are simply the story that explains the mistakes we made so far trying to achieve them.
When humans will follow those 9 rules to their actual meaning, there will be no need for any of the messengers rules and laws.

 

[Trailblazer]

What do you mean when you say "expect"? it doesn't seem like a valid option for a timeless being.

What does God being a timeless being have to do with what God enjoins (not expects) humans to do in this world?

Actually, not really.
It wants us to understand what was behind those laws and surely not follow them to their literal words.
I am sure you were not expecting that all those laws will be enforced on us today. this will be a very scary world to live in.
God gave us the base rules. all others are simply the story that explains the mistakes we made so far trying to achieve them.
When humans will follow those 9 rules to their actual meaning, there will be no need for any of the messengers rules and laws.

You said "all of those laws." What laws are you referring to?
What 9 rules are you referring to?

 

[CG Didymus]

As I just said to @9-10ths_Penguin, I think the primary reason that atheists cannot believe in God is because they are illogical. He helped me to see that so I thank him for that. I cannot reason with people who are illogical.

So, if you and an atheist were discussing God with a born again Christian, I think you and the atheist would be making very similar arguments as to why their Trinitarian God doesn't exist. Then, you could add in Satan and probably tell the Christian why Satan isn't real also.

And, then the Christian would give you all kinds of Biblical evidence and what ever else they use to prove that their beliefs are logical and true. Oh, and have you heard of Josh McDowell's book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"? I've glanced at a few pages, but I don't remember how far he goes with taking the Bible literally. But I know some Christians do and will give evidence for a young Earth and a world wide flood. And after they show you all that evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if they thought you and anybody else that didn't agree with that evidence was being "irrational".

So maybe some Atheists do get a little irrational, but so do "True believers" in most any religion. Their truth and their facts are what their religion says is true... And, it sure seems like some Baha'is do fall into that category of being "true believers". Which is great if in fact your religion is true, but they all can't be true.

 

[CG Didymus]

"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own."

The usual questions... How thorough is this investigation? After a person studies the Baha'i Faith and decides to join, do they keep investigating to make sure that the new things they learn still fall in line the Truth. Can they ever know for sure?

 

[Trailblazer]

So, if you and an atheist were discussing God with a born again Christian, I think you and the atheist would be making very similar arguments as to why their Trinitarian God doesn't exist. Then, you could add in Satan and probably tell the Christian why Satan isn't real also.

Yes I would disagree with those Christian beliefs just as most atheists, but for different reasons. I never said that all believers are logical or rational.

So maybe some Atheists do get a little irrational, but so do "True believers" in most any religion. Their truth and their facts are what their religion says is true... And, it sure seems like some Baha'is do fall into that category of being "true believers". Which is great if in fact your religion is true, but they all can't be true.

I was not talking about being irrational. Anyone can be irrational. I was talking about being illogical. Of course anyone can also be illogical but when it comes to the subject of God and how God communicates to humans almost all atheists I have encountered are illogical. The irony is that they call me illogical just because I believe in God and Messengers but beliefs in themselves are not illogical, human reasoning is illogical. Atheists try to conflate the two and that only makes them look more illogical. It is funny to watch but sad to see.

There is nothing inherently illogical or irrational about being a true believer in God. It is only how people reason that can be irrational or illogical.

 

[CG Didymus]

Prophecies that don't always fit. That came from Holy Books that were written by men. Like this book used by Baha'is...
There are a number of Buddhist texts foretelling Maitreya. Of these, the most important is the Anāgatavaṃsa (“The Chronicle of the Future [Buddha]”).

I have no idea what other Baha'is consider. I am for the most part an isolated believer, as Baha'is refer to us. I only see other Baha'is on this forum and in my living room!

Again it's because you and other Baha'i say that Baha'u'llah has fulfilled all the prophecies of all the major religions. A Baha'i wrote that article that I linked to and they mention this book, "Anāgatavaṃsa". I'm guessing it wasn't written by the Buddha. So how reliable would any prophecies in that book be?

Then I looked at another site that talked about the Buddha, and it said this...

The Buddha was not a god and he made no claim to divinity. He was a human being who, through tremendous effort of heart and mind, transformed all limitations. He affirmed the potential of every being to reach Buddhahood. Buddhists see him as an ideal human being, and a guide who can lead us all towards Enlightenment.​

I like that. He made no claim of being anything but a human that through meditation became enlightened, and that he can guide others to also attain enlightenment. Much, much different than what the Baha'i Faith says about him... that he is a manifestation of God, that "originally" he taught about God and did not teach reincarnation.

So, although the Baha'i Faith has a lot of good things going for it, it is still a religion that, once a person believes in it, expects them to believe it all. I just see too many little inconsistencies and contradictions. It's the same problem that some Christians face. How far and how literally are they going to believe? As you've pointed out some liberal Christians reject a lot of the Bible as being literal... including the resurrection and creation. Oh, well I'm off to look at your thread. It's so nice reading a couple of pages. Posting a couple of things and moving on. Oh wait, this was your thread.

 

[Trailblazer]

The usual questions... How thorough is this investigation? After a person studies the Baha'i Faith and decides to join, do they keep investigating to make sure that the new things they learn still fall in line the Truth. Can they ever know for sure?

Every Baha'i is different so there is no set rule. Some might keep investigating and some might not, but most Baha'is continue studying after they become Baha'is. Most don't study the older religions, they study the Baha'i Writings, because there is no reason to study the older religions that are no longer pertinent to this age. Why is it that people can see that old things get old and wear out and are no longer useful, but when it comes to religion people cannot see that? This is what I mean by illogical.

I do not know any Baha'is who keep investigating to make sure that the new things they learn still fall in line the Truth because they determined that the Baha'i Faith was the Truth before they joined. I don't know any wishy-washy Baha'is. All Baha'is I know are rock solid in their beliefs. My husband and I know for sure, we have no doubts. There is nothing else we are that sure about. After over 50 years being a Baha'i why would we still have doubts?

 

[Trailblazer]

Again it's because you and other Baha'i say that Baha'u'llah has fulfilled all the prophecies of all the major religions. A Baha'i wrote that article that I linked to and they mention this book, "Anāgatavaṃsa". I'm guessing it wasn't written by the Buddha. So how reliable would any prophecies in that book be?

Then I looked at another site that talked about the Buddha, and it said this...

The Buddha was not a god and he made no claim to divinity. He was a human being who, through tremendous effort of heart and mind, transformed all limitations. He affirmed the potential of every being to reach Buddhahood. Buddhists see him as an ideal human being, and a guide who can lead us all towards Enlightenment.​

I like that. He made no claim of being anything but a human that through meditation became enlightened, and that he can guide others to also attain enlightenment. Much, much different than what the Baha'i Faith says about him... that he is a manifestation of God, that "originally" he taught about God and did not teach reincarnation.

Since you are always talking about these religions I thought you might like these articles I got recently about Buddhism and Hinduism from a Baha'i perspective.

Maitreya and the Buddhist End Times: A Moral Order Renewed

The Oneness of Religion in the Hindu Advaita Vedanta

So, although the Baha'i Faith has a lot of good things going for it, it is still a religion that, once a person believes in it, expects them to believe it all. I just see too many little inconsistencies and contradictions. It's the same problem that some Christians face. How far and how literally are they going to believe? As you've pointed out some liberal Christians reject a lot of the Bible as being literal... including the resurrection and creation. Oh, well I'm off to look at your thread. It's so nice reading a couple of pages. Posting a couple of things and moving on. Oh wait, this was your thread.

I wonder why some people see inconsistencies and problems with the Baha'i Faith whereas the Baha'is don't see them. I think it is because as Bahais they accept the Covenant of Baha'u'llah which means we accept everything that is in the authoritative Writings of the Baha'i Faith.

It is not that I am not a detail-oriented person, I am very detail-oriented, but I an also able to see the big picture of the Baha'i Faith and I am able to find explanations for everything you think is inconsistent.

 

[F1fan]

The real problem, here, is a poor and heavily biased interpretation of the "burden of proof" rule. The 'burden' is that the person asserting a truth claim is required to offer the evidence they found to be supporting their assertion, and the criteria by which they deemed that evidence 'proof'. I repeat: ... and the criteria by which THEY DEEMED THAT EVIDENCE TO BE PROOF.

Well "the evidence they found to be supporting their assertion" is included, but is not actually the full extent of what is expected. A person is expected to have enough self-knowledge to know if they are rational thinkers, and knowing the rules of logic only rational people would put forth a valid claim/assertion. Mistakes happen, and these can be exposed in discourse.

But we are seeing claims that not only have poor evidence, the evidence isn't even good enough to support an acknowledge the claim might be plausible. Religious claims are notoriously a poor bet to claim in a community of rational thinkers. These claims get obliterated on a routine basis. For a savvy thinker, religious claims tend to be easy pickings.

The "burden of proof" rule does not mean that the person asserting a truth claim must prove that claim to the satisfaction of whomever the claim is being asserted. I repeat that: the person asserting a truth claim is not obliged to prove their clam to the satisfaction of the recipients of the claim.

Well I guess it's true that there is no rule that evidence has to be credible and valid. The thing is logic assumes the users will be informed, ethical, honorable, and want to promote truth. With religious claims we see many folks who share none of these virtues, and just want to promote their dogma. Theists often get upset when the rules of logic are applied, along with the ethics of thought, and the claims get slaughtered. Trailblazer is an example of this to a degree that I've never seen in decades of religious debate.

When @Trailblazer asserts the claim that God exists and is as he describes, he is NOT OBLIGED TO PROVE THAT CLAIM TO ANYONE ELSE'S SATISFACTION. He is only obliged to present the evidence that has convinced him of this truth, AND the criteria by which that evidence convinced him.

TB is female, but yes she does. The thing is she doesn't accept that her claims are highly flawed and the evidence lacking credibility. Then she repeats, ad nauseam. She doesn't learn. The ethics of the rules of logic are not respected.

She has her low standards that are good enough for her. They aren't good enough objectively.

The rest of us each have our own requirements for what constitutes evidence, and for what evidence will stand as 'proof'. And neither @Trailblazer, nor anyone else, can possibly be expected to meet those infinitely varied and subjective requirements. Such a requirement would be absurd, as it would clearly be impossible.

I suggest those who aren't already convinced some idea is true are the BEST judges of evidence. So to impress atheists over religious claims would be what most claimant's Holy Grail. I think theists should keep working hard to impress theists, and not other believers, who already believe. Preaching to the choir. I mean, you theists aren't here because you like the abuse, right?

So @Trailblazer has met his 'burden of proof'. That does not mean he has met YOUR requirements for proof. Nor did it ever imply he was expected to.

We are aware of how low the standards of evidence are for theists. Theists making claims in a diverse debates forum need to impress those who DON'T believe. To just keep posting the low quality evidence just invites more criticism and scorn.

Having a low standard of evidence should be embarrassing. It's almost as if it is a badge of pride.