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

[Trailblazer]

So it's such a fine line for Baha'is to say that they "believe" in the manifestations and the Scriptures of the old religions, but not the interpretations and the doctrines and dogmas of the old religions. And the problem is that we don't have the original teachings. All we know is what the Scriptures say.

All we know is what the Scriptures say and what the older Scriptures say is not as accurate as what the Baha'i Scriptures say for reasons you are already aware of. That is the Baha'i position FWIW.

 

[Trailblazer]

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?
Facts, of which there are none.

His image on burnt toast, signed.

How would you know it was God's image and signature on the toast?

 

[samtonga43]

Yes, people CAN and DO egotistically believe they are smart and have figured things out but that does not mean what they believe they have figured out is true....

Exactly. You're getting there, Tb!

 

[samtonga43]

How would you know it was God's image and signature on the toast?

Well, you couldn't know, but you could convince yourself it was God's image and signature, just as the B.man convinced himself that God was speaking to him.

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly. You're getting there, Tb!

I fully expected this from you so I am already there.
Leopards don't change their stripes.

 

[Trailblazer]

just as the B.man convinced himself that God was speaking to him.

Got any proof of that? Otherwise it is 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

 

[night912]

Got any proof of that? Otherwise it is 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

Now Trailblazer is denying the existence of her own religious scriptures.

 

[joelr]

All we know is what the Scriptures say and what the older Scriptures say is not as accurate as what the Baha'i Scriptures say for reasons you are already aware of. That is the Baha'i position FWIW.

What Bahai scripture is considered more accurate than Biblical scripture? In the thread that assessed the evidence - prophecy and the book that gave several criteria for proving one was a true prophet (new science, new philosophy, prophecy) all failed miserably. So the evidence is awful but what scripture do you consider more accurate.

 

[Trailblazer]

What Bahai scripture is considered more accurate than Biblical scripture? In the thread that assessed the evidence - prophecy and the book that gave several criteria for proving one was a true prophet (new science, new philosophy, prophecy) all failed miserably. So the evidence is awful but what scripture do you consider more accurate.

I believe that the Writings of Baha'u'llah are more accurate than any Biblical scripture because they are authentic, since they were written by Baha'u'llah who I believe was a Messenger of God who spoke as the Voice of God. Nothing in the Bible was written by a Messenger of God such as Moses or Jesus or any prophet, it is all the writings of men whose authorship is uncertain or unknown. How can such scriptures accurately represent what a Messenger or a prophet actually said?

I wrote my own set of criteria for a true Messenger of God.

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

 

[joelr]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

There are thousands of people who claim to have messages from Gods and this has always been the case. Almost all religions are revelatory so picking a select few who support your beliefs and assuming they must be the correct ones is confirmation bias. None of these messengers ever have any messages that isn't already known and standard philosophy. In fact any actual advanced philosophical ideas came from actual philosophers who were not speaking for a God. Religious messengers just rehash standard morality and vague prophecies.

Why would a God provide evidence that looks exactly like religious syncretism and morals people already know?
Read this and tell me why this man was preaching every important point Jesus was preaching except earlier?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder
Would a God not have new stuff to say? Or is it more likely Jesus was created as a literary character to deliver the new teachings of the religion. Rabbi Hillel was just a man so they needed a deity to preach the ideas of the movement. There is no evidence of a God here.
Not to mention the theology of Jesus is copying Hellenism (right after Israel was occupied by the Greeks)?

 

[Trailblazer]

There are thousands of people who claim to have messages from Gods and this has always been the case.

That is true, but there are only a few men who meet the criteria I posted above.

 

[joelr]

That is true, but there are only a few men who meet the criteria I posted above.

I see.

"1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient."

As are most good people. You describe my Father and ex Pastor? Although this is just his public persona, so you cannot say for sure. He had 3 wives so I suspect he was as human as the rest of us.
Being a good person does not make one a god messenger or prove Gods exist.

"2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do."

So was Joseph Smith. So you are a Mormon as well? And the founder of every other religion has done this as well. There are not things that demonstrate a person is a divine messenger?


"3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God."
Yes and the woman on the Personal Development For Smart People gave daily messages from Jesus. Every day, long fluffy messages about compassion and uniting humanity and peace..... Whom she channeled. All cult leaders firmly believe they are working for some God. Unfortunately his writings are fluff. Basic concepts about union, love and thigs people have been preaching for centuries. He also was clearly familiar with many religions and some philosophy because he's just repeating it?


"4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded."

Oh boy, this list is bumming me out. So does Scientology. Had many followers while alive, now millions. Does that have any bearing on the truth of it?



"5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times."

By 2050 Islam will surpass Christianity in membership.


All cult leaders have exactly EVERY criteria you listed. This is how they get people to follow them. By acting as if they are almost superhuman and have a divine purpose and influence people in many ways.
Nothing on this list is designed to actually discover if your beliefs are true. Not one thing.
Sai Baba had all these qualities in the late 1800's and even performed miracles witnessed by millions in India. He also repeated Vedic text wisdom and people ate it up like they never heard it before? Again, he's just a guy.

What scripture is more accurate than Biblical scripture?

 

[Trailblazer]

All cult leaders have exactly EVERY criteria you listed.

No cult leader meets ALL of the criteria I listed.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nothing on this list is designed to actually discover if your beliefs are true. Not one thing.

That was not the purpose of the list. The purpose was to rule out false claimants.

What scripture is more accurate than Biblical scripture?

The Writings of the Bab and the Writings of Baha'u'llah and the Qur'an.

 

[joelr]

No cult leader meets ALL of the criteria I listed.

Of course they did? Why would that be so hard to do?

Sai Baba , Ghandi, Budduh, I'm sure there are many more including the founder of Scientology

None of those criteria demonstrate divinity however? Popularity? That is a fallacy? He believed he was a messenger? Fallacy? (it's true because it says so)
You could say the same about Jane Roberts who channeled Seth?

 

[joelr]

That was not the purpose of the list. The purpose was to rule out false claimants.

This is bizarre? All cult leaders are very charismic, kind, seemingly all compassionate, knowing and all those features. It's what attracts gulliable people to them.
They all claim to be divine, have followers and after they die they may get more?
But getting more followers is not related to the truth of the cult? None of those things on the list even remotely shows a person is actually getting God messages? It just means they are good at getting followers.
There are 5 million Bahai. Deepak Chopra spiritual guru has sold over 20 million books. If he claimed he was recieving God messages he would probably have more. Yet he is not getting messages because people do not get God messages and Gods are actually fiction.
At least Gods who mingle with humans.

The Writings of the Bab and the Writings of Baha'u'llah and the Qur'an.

No I said which scripture is more accurate? Can you demonstrate the reason you say this.

 

[CG Didymus]

So it's such a fine line for Baha'is to say that they "believe" in the manifestations and the Scriptures of the old religions, but not the interpretations and the doctrines and dogmas of the old religions. And the problem is that we don't have the original teachings. All we know is what the Scriptures say. So, for me, if those religions have some things wrong in them, they started with the Scriptures themselves. Like with the gospel stories saying that Jesus resurrected. Very easily can be called a "superstitious" belief. But then, I'd do the same with the virgin birth story. So sometimes I agree with what the Baha'is believe and sometimes I don't.

All we know is what the Scriptures say and what the older Scriptures say is not as accurate as what the Baha'i Scriptures say

Then Baha'i can't say they believe in the "manifestations" and the Scriptures of the older religions, because Baha'is don't. They believe those older Scriptures are inaccurate, and that makes the stories about the "manifestations" in those Scriptures inaccurate.

So what Baha'is believe is what the Baha'i Faith tells them to believe about those "manifestations"... not what the Scriptures of those older religions say about them.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence,

Then why waste time asking those who don't share your belief what that evidence is or should be? that makes no sense at all.

if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him.

I can't imagine a better example of a circular reasoning fallacy.

I believe that God intervenes in the world by sending Messengers who are human and divine. I believe that they can do miracles but they do not want miracles to be the proof that they are Messengers. Even if a Messenger did miracles that would only be proof to the person or people who witnessed the miracle, so it can never be proof for everyone.

Well anyone can claim to believe literally anything, simply telling us what you believe goes nowhere?

Matthew 7:7-8
King James Version

Do theists ever consider how silly it is to quote their bible to atheists? Would quoting Harry Potter to you make you contemplate the possibility that wizards are real?

The evidence is readily available at all times

Yet no theist ever demonstrates any of it, I have to say the claim does not become more believable from endless repetition. How about just demonstrating the best evidence you think you have, right now? If every theists did this up front, and they all agreed that might at least give me pause...the universal reticence speaks for itself.

 

[samtonga43]

I fully expected this from you so I am already there.
Leopards don't change their stripes.

LOL! They should. They would look better with spots.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why waste time asking those who don't share your belief what that evidence is or should be? that makes no sense at all.

Did you read the OP?

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

I can't imagine a better example of a circular reasoning fallacy.

I said "If there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him."

There is nothing circular about that, it is completely logical. Why would a God expect people to believe He exists unless God provided evidence of His existence? That would be totally unjust.

Well anyone can claim to believe literally anything, simply telling us what you believe goes nowhere?

True, but everyone on this forum know WHAT I believe and WHY I believe it. I see you are new so you don't know.

Do theists ever consider how silly it is to quote their bible to atheists? Would quoting Harry Potter to you make you contemplate the possibility that wizards are real?

A fair point. Unless Christians can prove that Jesus actually said what is recorded in the NT and unless they can prove that what is recorded in the Bible actually happened they are up a creek without a paddle.

Yet no theist ever demonstrates any of it, I have to say the claim does not become more believable from endless repetition. How about just demonstrating the best evidence you think you have, right now? If every theists did this up front, and they all agreed that might at least give me pause...the universal reticence speaks for itself.

I present my best evidence constantly, but whenever I present it atheists say "that's not evidence" as I said in the OP.

Since you are new to this forum I will present the evidence again to you. I am a Baha'i so I believe in Baha'u'llah.
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