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

[ratiocinator]

Yes but Christians don't do "fib" because they're hooked on the truth..
...
And later some woman fingered Peter and said "You were in cahoots with that Jesus bloke", but he swore he wasn't.

Another genuine laugh out loud! So Peter wasn't a Christian? Your naivety and inability to see blatant contradictions, even as you're typing them, speak volumes.

The point is nothing like that has been edited out of the bible to make the people in it look squeaky clean, that's why we can trust it because it's come down to us over the centuries warts and all.

Not to mention blatant self-contradiction and absurdities...

 

[Dropship]

Another genuine laugh out loud! So Peter wasn't a Christian? Your naivety and inability to see blatant contradictions, even as you're typing them, speak volumes.
Not to mention blatant self-contradiction and absurdities...

Peter chickened because the Romans were after him, I'd have probably chickened and ran too.
Like I said, that bit and others that make people look bad were never edited out of the bible which is why we can trust it..
Incidentally I'm an ex-convict (3 month vigilante rap in 2002) and have said so in plenty of internet forums over the years because I LURV the truth..

PS- I've started posting in the 'Interfaith Discussions' section here and am pulling my punches with them for now, but I can't promise that'll last..

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why did your prophet use an analogy of a "lamp in the other room" as how easy it is to access this supposed evidence? Your prophet says it's easy and obvious, you are saying it isn't.

I used that as an analogy because I think it works. There is evidence in the next room but most people do not bother to even go into the next room to look at the evidence. The evidence is the researchable information about Baha’u’llah and the history of the Baha’i Faith and it is easy to access because this is the information age so you can research just about anything on the internet.

That was not written by Baha’u’llah. It is an excerpt from a talk given by Abdu’l-Baha, the son or Baha’u’llah and the Centre of His Covenant. In order to understand what that excerpt means you have to read the whole talk.

ON CALUMNY, Paris Talks, pp. 102-106

The preceding paragraph will help you understand the context:

“Do not let your hearts be troubled by these defamatory writings! Obey the words of Bahá’u’lláh and answer them not. Rejoice, rather, that even these falsehoods will result in the spread of the truth. When these slanders appear inquiries are made, and those who inquire are led into a knowledge of the Faith.

If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

What that means that as Baha’is we should not be troubled when people attack our Faith because that only results in other people inquiring about the Faith and then they learn more about it. The foolish man who listened to the calumny will be satisfied and believe it but the wiser man will do the research (go in to the next room) and find out for himself what the Faith is all about.

1) what reasons are there that some can't see it?
2) how do the rest see this evidence? What makes them special and different than the others?

1) We are all looking with different eyes (different minds) and that is why some see it and some don’t see it.
2) Most people see the evidence as indicative of a man, an ordinary man, but some of us see the evidence as indicative of a Messenger of God. That makes people different from one another; it does not mean they are special or better, just different.

he dogma isn't about looking at lamps in the other room. The meaning of the analogy is that the evidence is as OBVIOUS as a lamp in the other room.

No, the meaning of the lamp analogy is not that the evidence is as OBVIOUS as a lamp in the other room. The meaning is that the evidence is IN the next room. Some people will go into the next room and see the lamp and other people will never even bother to go into the next room because they don’t believe there is even a lamp in the next room. Although some people will go into the next room and see the lamp, not everyone who sees the lamp will see the light shining brilliantly from the lamp. Some people will see the light shining brilliantly from the lamp and some people will not see the light shining.

The point is that unless you go into the next room and check it out, you will never know if there is a lamp at all. Even after you go into the next room and see the map there is no guarantee you will see the light shining brilliantly from the lamp, but at least you made an effort to look at the lamp.

But given all you have posted the evidence is not available to open minds that only have to observe this evidence existing. Your evidence requires conditions, and those conditions are to assume certain things, like a God exists, and that there are messengers of God.

No, looking at the evidence in the next room has no preconditions whatsoever. You do not have to assume there is a God and Messengers of God in order to LOOK at the evidence. In fact you should not assume that before looking at the evidence. Why would you? You have no REASON to believe there is a God or Messengers of God UNTIL you look at the evidence.

Neither of these assumptions can be justified. There are no facts that suggest either are valid. I understand you cite some quotes, but upon reading them there is nothing spectacular about them. They often make their own assumptions that have to be accepted for the message to be treated as true/valid. A messenger should be offering obvious and verifiable claims that require no assumptions.

A thorough investigation requires that we look at all the evidence, not just a small part of the evidence. Some parts will not be evidence to you whereas there might be something else that will click for you. What convinces some people will not convince others. We are all very different. The Writings of Baha’u’llah were not very appealing to me when I first became a Baha’i and for many decades after that, so I read other books that contained the information I needed to know.

What is obvious and verifiable for some people will never be obvious and verifiable for other people because we all think and process what we read with a different mind. What looks spectacular to some is nothing special to others. That is what I was pointing about above in 1) and 2).

 

[ratiocinator]

Peter chickened because the Romans were after him, I'd have probably chickened and ran too.

Which doesn't actually change the contradiction between that and your claim of being 'hooked on the truth'.

Like I said, that bit and others that make people look bad were never edited out of the bible which is why we can trust it..

If this is the best you can do for reasons to trust the incoherent, self-contradictory mess that is the bible, then you must be desperate.

 

[PureX]

If they want to be believed, they need to meet the criteria for belief of the one they are trying to persuade.

"Belief" is not relevant to anyone but the believer. Playing the "persuasion game" is just a big waste of time and energy. All it's really for is ego-stroking. Philosophical discourse isn't about persuading anyone of anything. It's about ideological exposition. We share how we see and understand the world so that we can all see further through each other's eyes and minds.

If somebody makes a truth claim, it's their criteria for belief that matters?

Belief is irrelevant to anyone but the believer. What matters is the proposition being claimed as true, and why it's being presumed so by the claimant. Their job is to share that thought process, and our job is to try and understand it (not to discredit it).

 

[CG Didymus]

If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

There's lot of new religions and new versions of the old ones. They all can say to go into the next room. And, I think the Baha'is are right, the basic teachings of most all religions are one... Be nice to one another, and be good honest people. But they all might have different ways of practicing their religion, and they might all have different beliefs about prophets and Gods and how to connect or commune with God.

So, I think that's why most all religions kind of work. They are told that to succeed in the religion that people must do certain things and believe certain things and they will become better people and will feel the love of God or the spirit or whatever. But, most of us would agree that God, and that spirit in each might be described and defined very different in each of those religious groups. And, totally unprovable, because they are invisible. But still, people that practice the religion can "feel" that God or spirit. They feel the love, and therefore, they believe the teachings of that religious group must be true.

With the Baha'i Faith there's lots of teachings that would appeal and convince a person just on an intellectual level. But I do believe there are other religious groups that also leave off all the unprovable "mystical" things that might be just superstitious beliefs and take a more practical approach to their religion, like liberal Christians. At times, you've sounded kind of like that. You said you didn't even believe in God liked what the Baha'i Faith taught anyway. So was it, or is it still, hard to accept some of the mystical things about God?

 

[Trailblazer]

But there is another population that don't understand these things, and seem to think that reasoning is subjective, that their reasoning is just as valid as any other, and don't see the logical fallacies even when they are clearly pointed out and explained.

Some atheists and seem to think that reasoning is subjective, that their reasoning is just as valid as any other, and don't see the logical fallacies even when they are clearly pointed out and explained.

Well, if it's an attempt at reasoning and it's not rational, it's irrational. The standards for declaring an argument rational or irrational are understood by many, and misunderstood by many more as we see here on RF.

Indeed, arguments that are rational or irrational are understood by both believers and atheists, and misunderstood by both believers and atheists here on RF.

The experienced critical thinker doesn't ever choose what to believe. He never says, I want such-and-such to be true, therefore I believe it is. He goes where the application of valid reasoning to relevant evidence takes him. If he finds the argument compelling, he becomes a believer.

That’s exactly what I did. You can only speak for what you have done, not for what others have done, unless you live in their heads.

Many of us are satisfied that you have committed a specific set of logical errors. I understand that that means nothing to you, but that's part of the problem.

Why should what “many of you atheists” believe matter to me? Some atheists “believe” they can reason better than believers but that is nothing but arrogance.

I am satisfied that many atheists have committed many logical errors and I have pointed them out constantly.

You'll likely incorrectly call that an ad populum fallacy as you often do when confronted by consensus, but you would be in error again. The argument isn't that you are incorrect because a lot of people say so.

Yet you have nothing else to base your assertion that my reasoning is flawed upon except that “many atheists say so” and as such it is ad populum.

Clearly it is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum because you are saying that because “many of us” i.e., atheists say Trailblazer’s reasoning is flawed it must be true that Trailblazer’s reasoning is flawed. This is such a logical error. I could find just as “any believers” who would consider the atheist’s reasoning flawed, but I would never say that means that the atheist’s reasoning is flawed just because “many believers” think that.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

The argument is, from each of them, that your reasoning is flawed, and they agree just how it is flawed.

Yet you have no legs to stand on because you have not demonstrated that my reasoning is flawed. As such all you have us a personal opinion, a bald assertion.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up.
Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

That ought to mean something to you. I assure you that if a half dozen people knowledgeable about an area all agree that I am wrong, I would begin with the belief that I am probably wrong, and engage in dialectic with some or all to resolve the discrepancy, something we can do if we agree on what is relevant evidence and sound reasoning.

If a half dozen believers knowledgeable about an area all agreed that you are wrong, would you consider the possibility that you might be wrong and engage in dialectic with some or all to resolve the discrepancy? I sure have not see you doing this on this forum.

But your response to the same situation is very different. You just reject them all out of hand. Why? Because you don't recognize that they can be right and you wrong (or you don't care), much less that that is likely to be the case.

That is exactly what you do, and that is called psychological projection.

You reject all the arguments of believers out of hand. Why? Because you don't recognize that they can be right and you wrong (or you don't care), much less that that is likely to be the case. In my opinion you dismiss the arguments of all believers because you do not even want to entertain the 'possibility' that God might exist and a religion or religions might be true; so when confronted by a believer who has an argument you engage in all manner of dialogue to deflect and go on to explain how all believers are irrational. That way you can dismiss everything they have to say. It is not only you who does this; it is almost all atheists that debate with believers.

There is no reason why believers should consider the atheist position because we are holding all the high cards so we cannot lose the game. It is the atheists who have something to gain by listening to believers. We have nothing to lose and much to gain by believing in God, both in this life and in the afterlife.

 

[Trailblazer]

With the Baha'i Faith there's lots of teachings that would appeal and convince a person just on an intellectual level. But I do believe there are other religious groups that also leave off all the unprovable "mystical" things that might be just superstitious beliefs and take a more practical approach to their religion, like liberal Christians. At times, you've sounded kind of like that. You said you didn't even believe in God liked what the Baha'i Faith taught anyway. So was it, or is it still, hard to accept some of the mystical things about God?

I like the mystical things about God as well as the practical teachings of the Baha'i Faith and especially the "plan" for a new world order. I also like the teachings about the soul and the afterlife. I also like the Baha'i laws.

When I first became a Baha'is as you might recall I did not really think much about God and who God is. I always believed that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger/Manifestation of God but not until the last nine years did I realize what it meant to be a Messenger/Manifestation of God, nor did I know anything about God.

 

[Trailblazer]

When we debate we can make errors, and others pointing out our errors might feel personal and that the person is being criticized, but it's really just how the person is misusing the process of reason, by not following the rules that govern logical discourse.

The same applies to you. You also make errors as do all fallible human beings.

I do not mind if you disagree with what I believe but he you call it an error that someone made that crosses over into a personal criticism – YOU made an error. I try not to make it personal when I disagree. It is not necessary to keep saying YOU and YOUR. That is what shows it is personal.

Making mistakes can hurt the ego, but that is a risk the debater imposes on themselves when they sign up and participate.

The same applies to you but I have never seen you once admit you made a mistake. I have no false pride so I have no problem with making mistakes. I make mistakes all the time, but you should not assert that someone made a mistake unless you can prove it actually is a mistake. You cannot.

It is just your personal opinion that I make a mistake unless you can prove it as a fact.

What you claim as "special" is part of the concept of God you are claiming. It's not a fact. You are not describing a real phenomenon, you are claiming your belief is true, and is off limits from questioning or challenge. THAT is special pleading.

No, I am not claiming anything; I “believe” God is special. You can expect to hear that when you debate with believers. That is a risk the debater imposes on themselves when they sign up and participate in a religious forum.

NEVER did I claim that my belief is true, I only ever said that I believe my belief is true.

NEVER did I say my belief is off limits from questioning or challenge.

IF...... So now you need to prove the premise true, and by using facts, not assumptions, not belief.

No, I do not have to prove anything is true because I am not presenting a logical argument.

I already explained that religious beliefs are not subject to being proven with logical arguments since they can never be proven to be true. However if Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then God exists must be true.

 

[F1fan]

The list is as long as my arm and would fill another 50 forum pages..

Then you shouldn't have a problem naming just 10 of these people.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Some people will go into the next room and see the lamp and other people will never even bother to go into the next room because they don’t believe there is even a lamp in the next room.

I went to the other room and found a person selling snake-oil. Said "Patthar par maro, tunn ki awaz hogi" (Strike it on a stone, it will ring like iron).

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What YOU adopt as a standard of evidence is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Because YOU are not making the truth claim, someone else is. And so it's THEIR standard of evidence and THEIR threshold for proof that matters. This is what you don't seem to be able to grasp, here.

I've yet to find a theist who can justify that their belief in their god(s) meets even their own standard of evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've yet to find a theist who can justify that their belief in their god(s) meets even their own standard of evidence.

You just met one.

 

[F1fan]

I used that as an analogy because I think it works. There is evidence in the next room but most people do not bother to even go into the next room to look at the evidence.

There's not even an "other room" that is an apt metaphor for what you think constitutes evidence for a God or messengers. The whole metaphor is a bluff, a fraud, a misrepresentation, propaganda. It is easy to expose it as untrue, and that's because we all know how easy it is to verify there are adjacent rooms, and very easy to go see if there is a lamp. There is no such ease, nor verifiable elements to what you consider evidence.

The evidence is the researchable information about Baha’u’llah and the history of the Baha’i Faith and it is easy to access because this is the information age so you can research just about anything on the internet.

And with billions of people in the world we aren't seeing millions coming forth having done this research as saying "Hey, it is as easy as just going into a room and seeing if there's a lamp on". Your religion is quite fringe and has not gathered any sort of amazing revelations from those objective thinkers who looked into it like scientists and found it all true. If it was as good as your fervor indicates we would see a wild growth in numbers all over the world.

That was not written by Baha’u’llah. It is an excerpt from a talk given by Abdu’l-Baha, the son or Baha’u’llah and the Centre of His Covenant. In order to understand what that excerpt means you have to read the whole talk.

Well it was a poor analogy, and a clear deception.

What that means that as Baha’is we should not be troubled when people attack our Faith because that only results in other people inquiring about the Faith and then they learn more about it. The foolish man who listened to the calumny will be satisfied and believe it but the wiser man will do the research (go in to the next room) and find out for himself what the Faith is all about.

I suggest you are a bigger threat to your religion than any of the critics.

 

[F1fan]

1) We are all looking with different eyes (different minds) and that is why some see it and some don’t see it.

You didn't offer reasons, you just repeated the dilemma and conflict. I'm asking you to explain what there is to see objectively, and what is the real, actual impediment to those who can't "see" it, who are also quite skilled and objective thinkers. What will solve the impediment that you assert must be there to rational thinkers?

2) Most people see the evidence as indicative of a man, an ordinary man, but some of us see the evidence as indicative of a Messenger of God. That makes people different from one another; it does not mean they are special or better, just different.

So the difference is because you and your fellow believers are "seeing" these people as messengers. That is the condition you are placing on your thinking, and you offer no fact that they are actually, truly messengers of God. This is why we reject your claims. you offer no fact of any messenger, it's just up to you believers to decide they are. And you could be mistaken.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You just met one.

I've read your justifications. I don't think so.

 

[F1fan]

The same applies to you. You also make errors as do all fallible human beings.

I've made two errors of fact in the last few months that I should have checked. But I stood corrected when I 1) recognized that my statement was wrong, and 2) that the person who pointed out my error was someone I recognize as a credible thinker, a good reputation for truth.

I do not mind if you disagree with what I believe but he you call it an error that someone made that crosses over into a personal criticism – YOU made an error. I try not to make it personal when I disagree. It is not necessary to keep saying YOU and YOUR. That is what shows it is personal.

But debate isn't always about disagreeing. I'm not trying to convince you to switch from Coke to Pepsi. You are making claims that have blatant and obvious logical errors. You are corrected, yet you continue with the fallacies. And to boot you are accusing others of fallacies when they are not.

What we do to point out your errors is no more personal than a teacher marking 7 wrong answers on your test. The teacher isn't disagreeing with your answer, you got it wrong. The rules of logic give us a way to argue correctly, and you violate many of these rules because you have decided your beliefs and claims are true. It's as obvious as a lamp in the other room.

 

[Trailblazer]

That isn't the circular part. The circular part is where you use Baha’u’llah's own words and definitions to determine whether Baha’u’llah is a Messenger of God. He is basically saying "A Messenger of God is a person like me and therefore I am a Messenger of God.".

No, that is not what I do. Sorry if you misunderstood what I have been saying. I have told people on this forum myriad times that the evidence for Baha'u'llah is NOT "I said I am a Messenger of God " because that would be circular reasoning.

Below is a list of the primary categories of evidence that indicates that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. Please bear in mind that such a claim can never be proven, except to oneself.

1. 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

2. His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth, i,e., the history of the Baha'i Faith).

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.

3. His Writings which can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

4. Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies which is like icing on the cake. That proves to me He was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book:
William Sears, Thief in the Night

5. Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is more icing on the cake. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

What you'd actually need to support this premise would be some kind of evidence independent of the Messengers words themselves. You render this pretty much impossible though, because you've declared God as unknowable other than via his Messengers.

The best evidence is what I listed above, mainly 1-3. It would not be the best evidence, but there are books and articles that have been written about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith by people who are not Baha'is. It is useful to read these books and articles but since they are written by outsiders they are not the best source of information because they are not the people who were/are closest to the religion.

The best evidence comes from the original sources, those who were/are closest to the Messenger of God and His mission. For example, if anyone who had actually known Jesus wrote about Him and it could be verified that he had known Jesus, that would be the very best way to get information about who Jesus was and what He did on His earthly mission. Sadly, we have no such evidence for Jesus, all we have is third hand accounts that came to us by way of oral tradition decades after Jesus walked the earth. Such is not the case for Baha'u'llah because the history of the Baha'i Faith was well-documented. We have written accounts of His life and mission and some were written by people who knew Him personally.

 

[F1fan]

No, I do not have to prove anything is true because I am not presenting a logical argument.

So you have no problem when we aren't convinced what you believe is true. It's odd that you are behaving like a person who is trying to present arguments.

I already explained that religious beliefs are not subject to being proven with logical arguments since they can never be proven to be true.

Then they are false since that is the binary default. No one show treat religious concepts are true since you admit they can't be proven, so quite dubious for meaning in life.

However if Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then God exists must be true.

IF my cat was a brilliant writer THEN she would be a poet.

Is my cat a poet, or just a brat that tore up a roll of toilet paper while I was working?

 

[We Never Know]

So you have no problem when we aren't convinced what you believe is true. It's odd that you are behaving like a person who is trying to present arguments.


Then they are false since that is the binary default. No one show treat religious concepts are true since you admit they can't be proven, so quite dubious for meaning in life.


IF my cat was a brilliant writer THEN she would be a poet.

Is my cat a poet, or just a brat that tore up a roll of toilet paper while I was working?

Why does anyone have to prove to you what they believe? If I believe something it wouldn't matter to me if you believed me or not.
My belief would be for me, not you.