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

[InvestigateTruth]

When you get the flu make sure to stay away from yourself because you are contagious.



"(of a disease) spread from one person or organism to another by direct or indirect contact."

This is pretty bad, did you think this through? You are kind of proving my point here.

But at that time it was already known that cancer spread (in the same person). So why would he state something already known but say it using the wrong word? He wasn't dumb or illiterate. He knew what contagious meant. No one ever used the word contagious to mean a disease spreads in the body? He was a good writer.
Why would he say even healthy people have to worry? He meant cancer is contagious like a flu and even healthy people can catch it. This is pretty straightforward.
He was saying this as if it wasn't known. The reason he did this is because medical science wasn't sure yet about the pathology of cancer so it was possible it could be contagious.

This is how you understood it, and that is fine.

 

[Trailblazer]

Assert
verb

1. state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

Dear oh dear...

Fair enough, confidently but never forcefully.....but show me where I ever CLAIMED that my beliefs are true.
I have said I believe they are true but I never claimed they are true because I cannot prove they are true.

 

[Trailblazer]

This much is clear, but if I claimed wizards were real because the writing of JK Rowling were sufficient proof for me, I doubt you'd be inclined to start believing in wizards, even if you read all the Harry Potter books, though I doubt my bare claim would prompt you to bother.

So do you see the problem?

You need to stop telling me I am claiming it, you need to stop right now.
I was only stating what was proof to me, I was not making any claims. I do not expect what was proof to me to be proof to you.

Trailblazer said: The Writings of Baha'u'llah alone would be enough proof for me. Of course the Person of Baha'u'llah and the history of the Faith are also proof to me.

 

[Sheldon]

You need to stop telling me I am claiming it,

No sorry, I don't, as that is precisely what you did. I'm sorry if this upsets you, but you are free to stop making claims in a public debate forum, if it upsets you to have them challenged.

I was only stating what was proof to me,

That is axiomatically a claim...

you need to stop right now.

You don't get to tell others what they can comment on, if you can make the claim, then others are free to comment on it.

I was only stating what was proof to me,

You also claimed it was true, as that is demonstrably what a belief is defined as, and you claimed to believe it. If you want to keep your personal beliefs away from public scrutiny that is entirely your right, but when you assert them in a public debate forum, that is by definition a claim.

I was not making any claims.

Yes, you absolutely were, but feel free not to make such claims in a public debate forum, if it causes you distress to see them challenged, and held up to critical scrutiny.

I'm sorry you appear to be distressed, but I reserve the same right you have exercised, to speak my mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

No sorry, I don't, as that is precisely what you did. I'm sorry if this upsets you, but you are free to stop making claims in a public debate forum, if it upsets you to have them challenged.

I make no claims. I only state beliefs. Beliefs are not claims.
You can challenge my beliefs all you want.

That is axiomatically a claim...

It is not a claim by any stretch of the imagination.

You don't get to tell others what they can comment on, if you can make the claim, then others are free to comment on it.

I make no claims. I only state beliefs.
You can comment on my beliefs all you want to.

You also claimed it was true,

No, I only stated that I believe it is true.

If you want to keep your personal beliefs away from public scrutiny that is entirely your right, but when you assert them in a public debate forum, that is by definition a claim.

I make no claims. I only state beliefs.
I am not trying to hide my beliefs from public scrutiny. Why do you assume you know what I am thinking?

Yes, you absolutely were, but feel free not to make such claims in a public debate forum, if it causes you distress to see them challenged, and held up to critical scrutiny.

I'm sorry you appear to be distressed, but I reserve the same right you have exercised, to speak my mind.

I make no claims. I only state beliefs.
It does not cause me any distress to see my beliefs challenged or held up to critical scrutiny.

So far, I have not seen you challenge or scrutinize my beliefs, all you have done is call them claims. Do you want to step up to the plate and hit the ball or are you going to spend all your time calling my beliefs claims.

 

[Sheldon]

I make no claims. I only state beliefs. Beliefs are not claims.
You can challenge my beliefs all you want.

It is not a claim by any stretch of the imagination.

I make no claims. I only state beliefs.
You can comment on my beliefs all you want to.

No, I only stated that I believe it is true.

I make no claims. I only state beliefs.
I am not trying to hide my beliefs from public scrutiny. Why do you assume you know what I am thinking?

I make no claims. I only state beliefs.
It does not cause me any distress to see my beliefs challenged or held up to critical scrutiny.

So far, I have not seen you challenge or scrutinize my beliefs, all you have done is call them claims. Do you want to step up to the plate and hit the ball or are you going to spend all your time calling my beliefs claims.

All beliefs are the affirmation of a claim, that is axiomatic, and your claims for your beliefs have been presented without any objective evidence, so there is nothing to challenge. Why not offer some objective evidence to support your claims, rather than wasting time with sophistry and semantics.

Claim
verb

1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.



When you're in a pit.................stop digging....

 

[samtonga43]

Baha'is believe in the harmony of science and religion, that each one is as as necessary as the other.

And what makes you believe that Christians do not believe in the harmony of science and religion?

 

[CG Didymus]

Irony overload, yes the contradictions are inevitable really, I've been asking for something tangible for ages, and I'm about done, as all I get are endless unevidenced assertions, not unlike all other religions tbh.

And have you learned anything meaningful about the Baha'i Faith that would make you want to investigate it further?

 

[Trailblazer]

Claim
verb

1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.



When you're in a pit.................stop digging....

I have provided evidence so I am not in a pit. Just because you don't LIKE the evidence that does not mean it is not evidence

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. 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 From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

His own Self is who He was, 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

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
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.

The words He hath revealed is what He wrote can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

 

[Trailblazer]

And what makes you believe that Christians do not believe in the harmony of science and religion?

Maybe the fact that it is not in any of the Christian teachings.
Christians cannot claim Baha'i teachings just to try to compete.

 

[rational experiences]

If men argue claiming a man's personal experience is lying. Just an equal human first.

You have to look at motivation.

What does he seem to gain by teaching the information is basically the point to contend with.

If he is not teaching scientific relativity like his brother did then he is teaching cause and effect of science caused by his brother.

Human. Man. God scientist theist.

Rationally.

So if man minding his own business....living naturally does ceremony.

He is a man choosing to participate in ceremony.

No status wrong in that review.

If you are a man in a group who attacks others by ceremony. You are wrong.

Science with man built machines caused life attack. Group is wrong.

Status men disassociated from family natural using groups against natural existence.

As messengers always use human man references in the God sciences then the advice was for men living on earth as God supported changed by a God act.

Changing God o earth was first man's choice...so God then as owner everything all concluded states pre thought theories by man as cosmic advice gets attacked. Cause effect. Chain reaction.

Chain and reaction stated Satan.

Says I compare my new message life body attack change to my brother of the past.

Is no different to my daughter life getting an old dinosaur extinction vision with a man humans science status men of old science caused the attack.

As cosmic returned cause.

I truly believe what my Baha'i brother tried to reassess and teach. Humans man science lied. Science is not a safe practice at all.

No other reason why rich men controlling trade invention and want of techniques killed him. The messenger challenging greedy men always had.

It is the same human history lived over and over again.

Man's greed would have us all destroyed by intent how much monetary benefit would a technology give him. Not a true question is it safe for life.

 

[Tiberius]

You mean, so you take potshots at it. I know your ilk. I've had enough of that kind of game. I choose to not try to prove anything to you because I believe it is useless, plus it would cause me further aggravation. I only want to converse with those who are sincere.

If your evidence is valid evidence, I will have no problem with it.

If it is not evidence, but opinion, I will point out that it isn't evidence.

If it is based on logical fallacies, I will point out the fallacies.

But making me out to be a troll is a strawman and ad hominem argument, since you are presenting an attitude I do not have (namely, that I will belittle your claims because I disagree with them) and since you are claiming that I am a troll, or bully, or whatever word you want to use.

 

[Tiberius]

The fact that people have different perspectives so they all come to different conclusions in no way means that spiritual truth and God are not real. Scientific facts cannot be compared to religious truths without committing the fallacy of false equivalence.

Again with the excuses.

If something is an objective fact, they will reach the same conclusion no matter what their perspective is.

One does not get different values for the height of the Eiffel Tower simply because they have different perspectives. One's perspective does not change the length of time it takes for Mercury to orbit the sun.

What is objective truth?

Something that is actually real and exists outside of the people measuring it. Something for which testable evidence can be shown.

I am not trying to measure anything. I just look at the evidence to determine if it exists.

So you are trying to measure the realness of it. You are measuring whether it exists in reality.

That is another big fat straw man. I did nothing of the sort. You cannot remove your own bias long enough to even read and understand what I am saying, you keep projecting your bias onto me. It is not even worth responding to because I already explained how I became a Baha'i in the other post where you made a straw man.

I do remember you posting once that you only seek the evidence that supports your belief. Sadly, I can't find that post at the moment.

My faith does have criteria but that list was made by me.

That's not what I asked though, was it?

Does the Baha'i faith itself specify any criteria?

How do you know? Many people say they detect God all around them and to them God is just as real as the wind and light. But spiritual detection is not the same as physical detection.

Of course, wind and light can be independently measured. God cannot. If you and I are in the same place, we will agree on what the wind is, whether it is strong or weak, warm or cold. We will agree on what the light is, whether it is bright or dark, white or coloured.

But such agreement about God is impossible.

You read into that. All I was saying is that you did not see what was there. There is nothing rude or arrogant about that.

And in doing so you were saying that I am blind or otherwise not good enough to reach the same conclusion that you have reached - a conclusion that you conclude MUST be true because you can't imagine that you are wrong. (I mean, you certainly haven't reached your conclusion because you have evidence for it.)

Did you even use the method I suggested you use and then find nothing there?

You know I was a believer for about 20 years, right?

What is it with believers, they always think that anyone who doesn't share their faith has just not been doing it right. And if they do it the right way, all of a sudden, they'll become believers in an instant. What is up with that?

I am just being honest and since I am not trying to win a debate it hardly matters.

That's good. I used to think that Baha'i was a fairly sensible faith. You've certainly corrected that impression!

 

[Tiberius]

It is simple for you because it allows you to dispense with religion but it is a completely illogical conclusion, given that religion has been the cause of all great civilizations.

“The greatest bestowal of God in the world of humanity is religion; for assuredly the divine teachings of religion are above all other sources of instruction and development to man. Religion confers upon man eternal life and guides his footsteps in the world of morality. It opens the doors of unending happiness and bestows everlasting honor upon the human kingdom. It has been the basis of all civilization and progress in the history of mankind.

We will therefore investigate religion, seeking from an unprejudiced standpoint to discover whether it is the source of illumination, the cause of development and the animating impulse of all human advancement. We will investigate independently, free from the restrictions of dogmatic beliefs, blind imitations of ancestral forms, and the influence of mere human opinion; for as we enter this question we will find some who declare that religion is a cause of uplift and betterment in the world, while others assert just as positively that it is a detriment and a source of degradation to mankind. We must give these questions thorough and impartial consideration so that no doubt or uncertainty may linger in our minds regarding them.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 270

So what? That doesn't mean religion is correct, only that it can be used to manipulate and control people. And I won't argue with that.

My explanation was not convoluted, it was completely logical and based upon historical facts, but because of your bias against religion your logical reasoning does not work properly. Your bias is like an impenetrable wall.

I'm not debating the historical facts here, am I? I have never said that Mr B didn't exist, I have never said he didn't do or say the things you tell me he did and said.

The convoluted bit was how you have to come up with excuses to get it to fit into all the messengers you claim have come before.

The problem is that those were not claims. Your bias has you thinking everything I post from Baha'u'llah's Writings is claims. The only reason I posted that was to show what Baha'u'llah wrote about the fundamental purpose of religion so you could hopefully see how that purpose is no longer being met by the older religions, but you have to read the content and think about what the older religions are doing and not doing in order to figure that out. With that in mind, here is the passage again. the Great Being is God.

“The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure. Our hope is that the world’s religious leaders and the rulers thereof will unitedly arise for the reformation of this age and the rehabilitation of its fortunes. Let them, after meditating on its needs, take counsel together and, through anxious and full deliberation, administer to a diseased and sorely-afflicted world the remedy it requireth….”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 215-216

If you present it as the truth, then it's a claim.

 

[Truthseeker]

If your evidence is valid evidence, I will have no problem with it.

If it is not evidence, but opinion, I will point out that it isn't evidence.

If it is based on logical fallacies, I will point out the fallacies.

But making me out to be a troll is a strawman and ad hominem argument, since you are presenting an attitude I do not have (namely, that I will belittle your claims because I disagree with them) and since you are claiming that I am a troll, or bully, or whatever word you want to use.

I am just tired of debating you guys. I hope I didn't offend you. The evidence has to understood in its totality, I can't present it in this small space.

 

[Tiberius]

That is what is said. Your choice.

Inner Eye

Could ye apprehend with what wonders of My munificence and bounty I have willed to entrust your souls, ye would, of a truth, rid yourselves of attachment to all created things, and would gain a true knowledge of your own selves -- a knowledge which is the same as the comprehension of Mine own Being. Ye would find yourselves independent of all else but Me, and would perceive, with your inner and outer eye, and as manifest as the revelation of My effulgent Name, the seas of My loving-kindness and bounty moving within you.

Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 326-327

In the Bible the prophet Isaiah said:

You will be ever hearing, but never understanding; you will be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ This people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes.

Regards

I'm sorry, do you think that quoting Mr B and the Bible is going to be convincing in any way?

If I quote comic books at you, will you believe that Batman is real?

 

[Tiberius]

None of those are claims. All of those are beliefs.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=belief+means

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=claim+means

Please show me where I ever asserted that my beliefs are true.

A belief is simply ACCEPTING that the claim is correct. Mr B made the claims, you accepted them, and that is as far as you can go while keeping it nothing more than a belief. But you don't just accept them, you say in the thread that they are the case.

When you say that your beliefs are true, you are stating that they are the case, thus making them claims. Considering that you present them as true while not providing any evidence or proof of them, they fit the definition very well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am just tired of debating you guys. I hope I didn't offend you. The evidence has to understood in its totality, I can't present it in this small space.

Do you even know what evidence is? There is all sorts of weak "evidence". One could call it that, but since it does and should not convince any rational thinker it should not count as evidence.

There is a way that one could demonstrate that one has objective evidence. Simply use the same standards as done in the sciences. Present a testable hypothesis. That means presenting an idea and explaining what reasonable possible observation could refute it base upon the merits of the hypothesis. If you have a reasonable test and the hypothesis can pass it then you would have reasonable evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

How do you know this:



Something is real, therefore it is true; is not a valid deduction and thus false as logical deductions.
I need more than you claiming that:
Reality is true. Truth is real.

Here is variant some religious people use.
Reality is God. God is real.

Now I don't accept your version without evidence and I don't accept the religious one without evidence.

In my life, everything I've ever known of fits into both categories or neither category. Everything I have ever seen that is real has also been true. Everything that has been true has also been real.

The chair I am sitting in is real, and the chair is a true thing. Klingons are not real, and Klingons are not true things.

Of course, if you know of something that is real but NOT true, or something that is true but not real, please tell me. I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Tiberius]

I am just tired of debating you guys. I hope I didn't offend you. The evidence has to understood in its totality, I can't present it in this small space.

Then I hope this doesn't offend you, but if you can't present it, then it's no different than if you didn't have it.