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

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, you would need some reasoning a long with it, but with that reasoning they are sufficient to indicating God exists.

Perhaps. The problem is that when investigated miracles appear to go away. Which once again raises the question of "what miracles?" One should realize that there is a big difference between the claim and the event.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God cannot come down to earth to verify that His Messenger is actually a Messenger, and that is why we humans are entrusted with verifying that for ourselves.

Can I interrupt and ask you. Did Bahaullah say (is it written) that god can't come down to verify himself as the messenger from god?

 

[Link]

Perhaps. The problem is that when investigated miracles appear to go away. Which once again raises the question of "what miracles?" One should realize that there is a big difference between the claim and the event.

You are right, which is why there needs to be a living guide who can perform them in all times for all people, and if he is not in public, the way to is to realize there would be a guide still and pray to God to be guided by his hands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The dilemma with these kinds of debates is how fast it goes off the rails. It's nailing jello to the wall. It's not easy to have general limits because so many different options of gods are available for consumption.

I will often point out that different versions of God can be refuted but a general refutation of god does not seem possible since there are so many possible different variants. Even most creationists agree that the Flat Earth version of God does not exist. Though getting them to admit even that can be like pulling teeth since they know what is next.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are right, which is why there needs to be a living guide who can perform them in all times for all people, and if he is not in public, the way to is to realize there would be a guide still and pray to God to be guided by his hands.

Too bad that no one can seem to find such a guide either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would be something that clearly can't be either works of illusionists (magicians) or sorcerers or Jinn, but something God would only trust his trustees with and be of immense power that indicates it's from God and proves God as well.

How could you ever establish that something you saw couldn't be the work of an illusionist?

 

[Link]

How could you ever establish that something you saw couldn't be the work of an illusionist?

Through reasoning.

 

[HonestJoe]

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

First, do you understand why the simple existence of people who claim to speak for God is not actual evidence of God (especially not a specific God)? After all, the are people who claim to be messengers for al sorts of different gods and people who claim to be messengers for the same god yet say entirely different things.

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

Haven't you asked this before? I'm sure I've given you this answer before;

That isn't how it works. If you want to propose something, it is on you to define the hypothesis (in sufficient detail) and therefore the consequences you would expect to see if that hypothesis was true (and couldn't be better explained by a different hypothesis). It is the testing of those expected consequences would provide the evidence.

Given there has still never been a detailed, definitive hypothesis presented for the existence of God, the entire process is deadlocked.

Of course, a lot of the people who do define gods (certainly the mainstream monotheistic ones) specifically define it as something that can't be evidenced or proven, the reliance on faith being the point in the first place. It seems like you're talking about a different type of god to this, all the more reason for you to properly define your hypothesis.

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.

Wouldn't that logic mean it was at least as likely that God doesn't exist (or at least doesn't exist as you're defining it)? You've sort of followed the scientific process I described, hypothesising that if this specifically defined God exists, there must be evidence for it. If you can't identify that evidence, you've successfully disproved your hypothesis and need to go back to the drawing board. That isn't a bad thing, it's a legitimate part of the process.

 

[firedragon]

Can I interrupt and ask you. Did Bahaullah say (is it written) that god can't come down to verify himself as the messenger from god?

Can you explain what you mean by "come down"? In your paradise or understanding, is this God character up in a loft, a different storey or the sky?

Please do explain?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Can you explain what you mean by "come down"? In your paradise or understanding, is this God character up in a loft, a different storey or the sky?

Please do explain?

Oh. I was wondering if in Bahaullah's writings, did god say he couldn't come to earth to verify Bahaullah is the messenger. I'm not sure how Bahai's define their god. So far from RF no believer from any religion has described their god as a being/person of some sort. Though there are denominations who speak of god as an actual being (he loves, he can't do things, things of that nature) while others experience god without messengers and isolated incarnations.

Personally, I don't believe there is a god being. I do understand the god experience but never had it myself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Through reasoning.

That's a non-answer.

How would you ever be able to be sure that a very clever illusionist hadn't tricked you?

Even if you were an expert illusionist yourself and knew most of the tricks, how could you ever completely rule out the possibility that someone had come up with a new trick that could fool you?

 

[firedragon]

Oh. I was wondering if in Bahaullah's writings, did god say he couldn't come to earth to verify Bahaullah is the messenger. I'm not sure how Bahai's define their god. So far from RF no believer from any religion has described their god as a being/person of some sort. Though there are denominations who speak of god as an actual being (he loves, he can't do things, things of that nature) while others experience god without messengers and isolated incarnations.

Personally, I don't believe there is a god being. I do understand the god experience but never had it myself.

I understand that you dont believe in a God. Thats fine.

But what do you mean come down? I am not a Bahai, but I know how Bahai's define God. God is not a thing to come down as in a ball or a sky creature lurking up above. Do you understand UA? Maybe its the word "down" that is making up this puzzle. There is no down or up for God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a non-answer.

How would you ever be able to be sure that a very clever illusionist hadn't tricked you?

Even if you were an expert illusionist yourself and knew most of the tricks, how could you ever completely rule out the possibility that someone had come up with a new trick that could fool you?

Penn and Teller have a TV show based on that concept. Most of the time they can understand how the trick is done and can communicate that with the magician without revealing the trick to others. Sometimes the magician fools them. And pre-Covid that meant a gig at their theater in Las Vegas:

Penn & Teller: Fool Us Video - Third Time's The Charm | Stream Free

Even the best of illusionists can be fooled.

 

[PureX]

This exemption can apply to pixies or invisible elves working in another dimension. The thing is these back of the shelf ideas have no utility and aren't seriously considered. Ideas of God these days is exclusive to personal meaning and tribal affiliation, which soothes the natural anxiety that resulted from our evolution.

Nevertheless, honesty matters. Especially about what can and cannot exist. and especially about what we can and cannot know to exist. Because it's in ignoring our own limitations that we become most vulnerable.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand that you dont believe in a God. Thats fine.

But what do you mean come down? I am not a Bahai, but I know how Bahai's define God. God is not a thing to come down as in a ball or a sky creature lurking up above. Do you understand UA? Maybe its the word "down" that is making up this puzzle. There is no down or up for God.

Ask Trailer. I don't know what she meant by come down but I used that wording to ask if Bahaullah was the one who said it or not. It wasn't my choice in words, so I don't know.

 

[PureX]

You might want to learn the difference between evidence and proof.

Well, that's the rub, isn't it. "Proof" isn't any kind or amount of evidence, it's just the point at which the evidence that we have convinces us. Such that "proof" is a relative and subjective criteria, not an objective state. And yet people throw that term around like it's some sort of objective absolute.

 

[firedragon]

Ask Trailer. I don't know what she meant by come down but I used that wording to ask if Bahaullah was the one who said it or not. It wasn't my choice in words, so I don't know.

Okay I understand your question. No worries. I do apologise for trying to answer for someone else.

I can give you the answer because it is very simple. But I shall leave it for the Bahai lady you asked it from. Cheers.

 

[PureX]

I think it's important for all humans to question why they think a God exists at all. This question will be very uncomfortable, and I suspect the vast majority would prefer to avoid this.

Likewise for asking oneself why they have chosen to believe that gods do not exist simply because they personally have not been convinced of it. Because that choice is equally unfounded.

 

[PureX]

But there is nothing wrong with presuming something to be a fact.

Of course there is, because facts are not presumed. Facts are small relative bits of information that we can know to be so. It's when we assemble them into theories of 'what is' that they become presumption. And it's very important that we keep in mind the difference, lest we start falling for our own delusions of 'what is'.

This is distinct from thinking that we couldn't be wrong about our assessment, as if whatever we regard as a fact must be a fact.

And yet that's what "believing in" our own theories of reality is: presuming that our theory of reality IS reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that's the rub, isn't it. "Proof" isn't any kind or amount of evidence, it's just the point at which the evidence that we have convinces us. Such that "proof" is a relative and subjective criteria, not an objective state. And yet people throw that term around like it's some sort of objective absolute.

Proof is always going to be personal. In such matters a logical absolute proof just does not seem to exist.

The problem is that no one can seem to find proper evidence to begin with. What one needs to ask when evidence is given is "Would it convince me if it went the other way". If the answer is no then it should not be evidence for an idea either.