• 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?

firedragon

Veteran Member
Yes of course I understand what you saying :) And the words you used may be closer to an actually Iben Arabi quote than my words :)

It is actually Ibn Arabi I am quoting. Not verbatim, but as a thought process.

Vut the question is, do you understand the depth of what he is saying? Just think about it and just respond with what you think. Mind the typos
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So hes/she/it is a recluse, If you god does not want to be known then what point in worship? Of course you will have an answer to that question that satisfies you.

There is a book by Terry Pratchett called "small gods" rather interesting and logical even if it is fantasy. I can recommend it to people who are not offended by humour.

The Islamic concept of God is that he is not like anything, any form. So if God was to appear, what would be the form he would appear in?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
It is actually Ibn Arabi I am quoting. Not verbatim, but as a thought process.

Vut the question is, do you understand the depth of what he is saying? Just think about it and just respond with what you think. Mind the typos
My understanding of Ibn Arabis words is that God is everywhere, there is no place God isn't
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
So hes/she/it is a recluse, If you god does not want to be known then what point in worship? Of course you will have an answer to that question that satisfies you.

There is a book by Terry Pratchett called "small gods" rather interesting and logical even if it is fantasy. I can recommend it to people who are not offended by humour.
My answer is not what satisfies me, it is the answer I believe is true.
God does want to be known, but God can only be known through His Messengers, never directly.
Logically speaking, if God wanted to be known directly, God would have made it possible to be known directly.

Now I bid you goodnight as it is way past my bedtime in this neck of the woods!
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
My understanding of Ibn Arabis words is that God is everywhere, there is no place God isn't

True. It’s deeper. See, the tree down the street is contingent. And think of its contingency. So you take it back, it grows, from a seed, fertilizer, soil, water, air, etc. Go into a million regressions. The only explanation in Ibn Arabis philosophy is God.

So he is not being some stupid theist who just makes some random apologetic preaching. He is using a logical approach to show you that the tree down the street is God showing himself in physical form.

If you want to see God physically, look at the tree down the street. It’s a logical approach.

The missionary atheist does not see this logic.

Do you see his logic?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
True. It’s deeper. See, the tree down the street is contingent. And think of its contingency. So you take it back, it grows, from a seed, fertilizer, soil, water, air, etc. Go into a million regressions. The only explanation in Ibn Arabis philosophy is God.

So he is not being some stupid theist who just makes some random apologetic preaching. He is using a logical approach to show you that the tree down the street is God showing himself in physical form.

If you want to see God physically, look at the tree down the street. It’s a logical approach.

The missionary atheist does not see this logic.

Do you see his logic?
Yes, I do see his logic, it is very similar to how the Sufism I study is understood
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Yes, I do see his logic, it is very similar to how the Sufism I study is understood

Bro. Of course. This is Sufism. I mean the foundation’s of sufism. What I said is profoundly the foundations of Islam. Not only that, it’s just natural theology.

It’s basic, simple, natural theology. The missionary atheists don’t engage with logic. Ibn Arabi is not preaching, nor is he speaking out of his mind. He is speaking simple logic.

This is why I say the militant atheists are not engaging in logic. They are more dogmatic and are indoctrinated than the missionary theist.

Peace.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
My answer is not what satisfies me, it is the answer I believe is true.
God does want to be known, but God can only be known through His Messengers, never directly.
Logically speaking, if God wanted to be known directly, God would have made it possible to be known directly.

Now I bid you goodnight as it is way past my bedtime in this neck of the woods!

Once again we are going round in circles so feel free to spin, im out of it.

Goodnight
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Messengers message uses both God's light and his Oneness to prove the truth. Messengers are also leaders appointed by God and leaders appointed by God are also God's light and proof and witnesses us with on the journey.

Their vision is by what we can witness God and know he is One. The message of the Messengers can remind of the truth but the truth is not words, it's beyond words and you have to witness it yourself.

God's light is the leader of our time (the Mahdi, the 12th Imam). That which they remind of is the Mastership and the relationship of God through his chosen kings and lights. The reminder consequently is themselves as well from this sense.

The Messengers are proofs, but their message only proves God when we witness their reality (hidden light) being with us.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I understand what you are saying but I disagree. Imo the fact that people exist who don't believe in God even though God who would be perfectly capable of convincing anyone he wanted of his existence does not mean that God doesn't want to be believed in by these people. Imo it means is that God does not want to convince people that He exists. God would rather they don't believe than convince them. God wants people to convince themselves that He exists and choose to believe of their own free will.
Sounds to me like we're saying the same thing. You just add on a reason why God might not want to convince people.

I know that is what you and all atheists want.

That's right, the God I believe in cannot be established to exist by empirical evidence.
I don't know about "all" atheists... but do you understand why I'd want empirical evidence?

I mean, you are suggesting a God that empirically exists, right? Things with empirical existence leave empirical evidence of their existence, and generally, the more significant the thing, the greater the quality and quantity of evidence for it.

... but you're arguing that God - which would be the most significant thing in the universe if it were to exist - leaves no empirical evidence at all. To me, this doesn't add up.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
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.
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.

Whenever the word 'evidence' is used like that I take it to mean it as 'something that leads to a certain specific undeniable conclusion'.

Consider it this way: Does it sound far-fetched that some guy claims to be a Messenger from God even he is not? Not at all.

Now imagine something like this: You wake up in the morning, as soon as you open your eyes you hear a voice talking to you but there is no one around. You blink, now you are in Paris looking at the Eiffel Tower, floating 50 meters from the ground. The voice tells you it is God. You blink, now you are underwater somewhere in the ocean, but you can breath just fine. You hear the voice saying that he wanted to prove to you he actually does exist. You blink, now you find yourself on the moon, you are looking at the Earth, feeling the different gravity. You blink, now you are back home. You hear your phone ringing. It is a friend that wants to tell you God just proved himself to her. And then another friend calls. And yet again another. And you figure out the entire world had similar experiences at that same moment. You walk out your home, it is already night time, but it is still 8 AM. You look up to the sky, and the stars are aligned saying 'God exists.'.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Whenever the word 'evidence' is used like that I take it to mean it as 'something that leads to a certain specific undeniable conclusion'.

Consider it this way: Does it sound far-fetched that some guy claims to be a Messenger from God even he is not? Not at all.

Now imagine something like this: You wake up in the morning, as soon as you open your eyes you hear a voice talking to you but there is no one around. You blink, now you are in Paris looking at the Eiffel Tower, floating 50 meters from the ground. The voice tells you it is God. You blink, now you are underwater somewhere in the ocean, but you can breath just fine. You hear the voice saying that he wanted to prove to you he actually does exist. You blink, now you find yourself on the moon, you are looking at the Earth, feeling the different gravity. You blink, now you are back home. You hear your phone ringing. It is a friend that wants to tell you God just proved himself to her. And then another friend calls. And yet again another. And you figure out the entire world had similar experiences at that same moment. You walk out your home, it is already night time, but it is still 8 AM. You look up to the sky, and the stars are aligned saying 'God exists.'.

Past Guides can't be accessed in person. A current guide can be. A current guide can perform miracles, those miracles prove a power vested in him from God that also proves God exists and realizing the magical nature of guide, you can that move on to witness his light reality/sky reality, and then connect to the guides of the past as well which are lights in the sky (Ahlulbayt) in this world.

Now, you will say, where is this current guide? Good question, we are living in hard times, in which the leader and guide is not in public. But if you believe miracles are evidence and part of the path to be guided and attain certainty, and promise you won't accuse the guide of being an evil sorcerer or one possessed/deceived by demons giving him such power than I will suggest praying the following with belief God CAN respond IF he exists.

I'm not asking you to believe in God or his Guide before the miracles, just, pray to God in a way that if he exists, he would respond and guide you with a promise that you will accept miracles.

The Quran says "And the disbelievers say why a sign not revealed regarding him, you are only a warner and for every people, there is a guide!" (13:7)

A believer when he prays...

"Guide us the straight path"
(1:6) believing what Quran has described about the Masters of the path and the Guides of it, will be guided to the Guides eventually.

It's only those who take all the Quran talks about including miracles playfully never preparing their souls to accept miracles and never reflecting over the issue of sorcery vs miracles and power from God discussion in Quran and reciting Quran heedlessly, that God out of his compassion, knowing their souls are corrupt and would not benefit from the signs, that would be deprived of reciters of Quran from miracles by the hand of the Guide.

No doubt, if you understand what Quran has described as a proof for himself, and the many reality of that proof and guide, even without believing in God and guide, you can see if God exists, this would be the best way to guide his creation and an absolute proof of himself and guidance.

In this case, just pray to God whether you know he exists or not, this is all God wants, humbleness and a promise not to reject his proofs when they are proven but rather be reasonable and humble to them.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
With all due respect, I do not think that is the issue at hand.

Here is what typically happens:
Atheists ask me for evidence that God exists and I say that Messengers of God are the evidence. Then they say "that's not evidence" because they don't think Messengers are sufficient evidence.
They can't be evidence.

You can't establish that someone is a Messenger of God until you've established God. Trying to argue that someone is a Messenger of God and then using that to establish the existence of God is begging the question.

That is why I started this thread, to find oy what would constitute evidence of God's existence for atheists.
What did it for you, out of curiosity? What convinced you that God exists?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
They can't be evidence.

You can't establish that someone is a Messenger of God until you've established God. Trying to argue that someone is a Messenger of God and then using that to establish the existence of God is begging the question.


What did it for you, out of curiosity? What convinced you that God exists?

What you said is true, which is why miracles in the past are not guidance for the future or present, but rather Quran says:

And the disbelievers say why a sign not revealed regarding him, you are only a warner and for every people, there is a guide!" (13:7)

A current guide showing miracles, seeing those signs by his hands would not be circular reasoning and is in fact, what Quran means by his proof.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Whenever the word 'evidence' is used like that I take it to mean it as 'something that leads to a certain specific undeniable conclusion'.

Consider it this way: Does it sound far-fetched that some guy claims to be a Messenger from God even he is not? Not at all.

Now imagine something like this: You wake up in the morning, as soon as you open your eyes you hear a voice talking to you but there is no one around. You blink, now you are in Paris looking at the Eiffel Tower, floating 50 meters from the ground. The voice tells you it is God. You blink, now you are underwater somewhere in the ocean, but you can breath just fine. You hear the voice saying that he wanted to prove to you he actually does exist. You blink, now you find yourself on the moon, you are looking at the Earth, feeling the different gravity. You blink, now you are back home. You hear your phone ringing. It is a friend that wants to tell you God just proved himself to her. And then another friend calls. And yet again another. And you figure out the entire world had similar experiences at that same moment. You walk out your home, it is already night time, but it is still 8 AM. You look up to the sky, and the stars are aligned saying 'God exists.'.
Clearly, I would still be dreaming. Or so I would have to presume.

The problem with "proof of God" is that no human can rule out the possible alternative explanations. Just as no human can rule out the existence of God as the explanation. In the end, it's a matter of choice, and of faith, REGARDLESS OF WHAT CHOICE YOU MAKE (even atheism).
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Past Guides can't be accessed in person. A current guide can be. A current guide can perform miracles, those miracles prove a power vested in him from God that also proves God exists and realizing the magical nature of guide, you can that move on to witness his light reality/sky reality, and then connect to the guides of the past as well which are lights in the sky (Ahlulbayt) in this world.
"Guides" are useless for this anyway.

You can't establish that someone is a "Guide" or "Messenger" sent by God if you haven't established that God exists at all.

... so all you have is that some guy a few centuries ago really believed that God exists... but so what? People believe wrong things all the time. The mere fact that someone believes a thing doesn't automatically make their belief true.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"Guides" are useless for this anyway.

You can't establish that someone is a "Guide" or "Messenger" sent by God if you haven't established that God exists at all.

... so all you have is that some guy a few centuries ago really believed that God exists... but so what? People believe wrong things all the time. The mere fact that someone believes a thing doesn't automatically make their belief true.

Past guides, you are right. A current guide who you meet, that's a different story.
 
Top