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

[muhammad_isa]

But anyway, you accept the notion that our destinies are predetermined, that the outcome of all events is determined by god's decree?

Nope ! I am not a Calvinist.

However, I do believe that Almighty God knows what we perceive as the future. That is because Almighty God is not part of the universe [ space-time continuum ].

That means, in turn, that the future must be fixed .. is that correct?
Yes, it must be, as it means God knows what we all choose to do.

..so what fixes it? That would be us
It is no different from the past being fixed.
..and tomorrow will eventually become the past.
Do you understand? Many people don't, I find.

I think Einstein gets it.

 

[Sheldon]

Remember, a person claiming to be a messenger of god is not evidence that they were. Neither is you believing those claims.

I've been tilting at that windmill for a while now.

 

[Sheldon]

However, I do believe that Almighty God knows what we perceive as the future.

So much for free will.

 

[Sheldon]

I think Einstein gets it.

He didn't believe in a personal god that intervened in the universe, so no most assuredly not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So much for free will.

Here we go .. care to explain why?

He didn't believe in a personal god that intervened in the universe, so no most assuredly not.

That is not relevant to his understanding of time.

 

[Trailblazer]

Firstly that's just a speculation see the big if, secondly how would one establish it was knowledge he couldn't possibly have had? This would have to be a falsifiable idea, otherwise it would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, logically nothing is either proved nor disproved through a lack of evidence. So simply have something you can't explain, doesn't rationally mean you can assign a divine agency to it. Not knowing is not knowing.

This was not about something that cannot be explained, it was @Tiberius who said that he would take it as evidence for God if the Bible described knowledge that the people of the time could not possibly have:

Tiberius said:

In any case, my standard answer to that is this. If the Bible said something like:

"And the Earth moved in a great circle around the sun, held in place by the sun's mass. And the circle was not perfect, but was longer in one direction than the perpendicular, and the passage of the Earth swept out equal areas in equal times. And the sun shone with the light of its tiniest parts coming together."

I would indeed take it as evidence for God, because it describes knowledge that the people of the time could not possibly have.​

So that is why I said what I said about Baha'u'llah having knowledge that the people of the time could not possibly have.

Trailblazer said:

"So why wouldn't it be evidence for God if Baha'u'llah described knowledge that the people of His time could not possibly have had?"

 

[Trailblazer]

So what really is the Bible and the NT to Baha'is? Are you expected to believe it as "God's" gift or as something that isn't 100% authoritative or something that Baha'is are free to interpret in some metaphorical way? Sometimes Baha'is make it sound like it is totally undependable for anything. And lots of once, as I've said before, would agree with you. But they are Atheists.

As I have posted before, below is the Baha'i position on the Bible according to the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, Shoghi Effendi:

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet.

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

So the gospel writers say the tomb was empty. The story of who went to the tomb and what they saw varies. So already... Was it accurate that Jesus was put into this tomb? The stories about who came to the tomb are all different, so we can't say any of them are accurate. Plus, some have Jesus being seen alive by Mary and some have angels appearing. Do Baha'is start making the stories metaphorical at this point? I would say why not explain these variations by saying that several traditions were going about in the years prior to the gospel stories getting written.

So, you say that the empty tomb is not evidence that God raised Jesus from the dead, but that's only part of the claim... Jesus then appears to them and shows himself to be alive. The claim is that he has flesh and bone. They touch him and see the scars left by the nails. So the claims made by the gospel writers are that the apostles and other disciples saw him and are witnesses that he indeed had come back to life.

All of it is fictional stories as far as I am concerned.

Baha'is have to make all of those stories and verses metaphorical. But they are told in the same way the rest of the story about the things Jesus said and did are told. I see no reason to suddenly make this part of the story metaphorical. Now making if fictional, a hoax, a story about Jesus with added embellishments with miraculous things in it to make him out to be a God-like, that I could believe.

I do not MAKE the story metaphorical, Abdu'l-Baha did that. I believe it is fictional, a story about Jesus with added embellishments with miraculous things in it to make him out to be a God-like.

But are the claims of Baha'u'llah any better? Is the God described in the Baha'i writings more believable than the one or the ones in the other religions?

They are better to me because they were written by a Manifestation of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

And since all believer in all the other religions probably have some wrong beliefs and doctrines, the only one that is right is the Baha'i Faith.

I do not think in terms of right and wrong. Rather, I would say that the Baha'i Faith is more accurate than the other religions because it is more authentic since the scriptures were written by a Manifestation of God and because those scriptures have not been altered and because it is the Word of God for this age.

“They that valiantly labor in quest of God, will, when once they have renounced all else but Him, be so attached and wedded unto that City, that a moment’s separation from it would to them be unthinkable. They will hearken unto infallible proofs from the Hyacinth of that assembly, and will receive the surest testimonies from the beauty of its Rose, and the melody of its Nightingale.

Once in about a thousand years shall this City be renewed and readorned….

That City is none other than the Word of God revealed in every age and dispensation. In the days of Moses it was the Pentateuch; in the days of Jesus, the Gospel; in the days of Muhammad, the Messenger of God, the Qur’án; in this day, the Bayán; and in the Dispensation of Him Whom God will make manifest, His own Book—the Book unto which all the Books of former Dispensations must needs be referred, the Book that standeth amongst them all transcendent and supreme.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 269-270

 

[rational experiences]

I used to pray. I believed in the motivated family purpose I want them saved healed not hurting and no more wars or hatred.

I believed.

But it was in family and nature's sanctity.

One day I decided no point in praying to God. So I changed my stance and said the loving light.

And I was doing it for myself and family.

Maybe a theist doesn't understand the families need for change to exist.

So humans have to be motivated by one same exact motivation. To be refined taught why. To believe. To assist. To gain the outcome.

Two positions.

The eternal that changed its body.
Inherited creation.

We left one form entered into the other.

Notified we should cause no more changes.

Hence where we live we had to apply the spiritual purpose.

Pretty basic.

The spiritual purpose we know is not science.

To the spirituality a theist and science consciously depicts all memories evil.

So science is not going to convince anyone.

We remember what you did. We know as family science theories for our destruction.

If you claim but I want you to be intelligent as science. Not likely. We want to remain as close to spirituality as we can.

Knowing survival depends on us.

So messengers in science status is theism men brothers science agreement.

A message is just a theism. As you are not cosmic bodies. Cosmic laws or cosmic causes

Men however argued what conditions earth owned that kept life safe and saved.

Naming them saviours.

Pretty basic advice. If science was causing life on earth to be attacked humans had to reason information about the circumstance to write scientific determined reasonings.

How it was explained is a human condition of old science methodology.

Today modern scientists simply want to know what you knew.

So they berate the answered status.

Is it really an entity of conscious purpose. If so how do I know it to understand it ....to do you know how dangerous these questions are humanity?

A whole lot of variant scientific motivation to just another simple belief no such status as spirituality.

Hence we try to defend the advice. As we knew its history involved life's harm.

Humans who taught it murdered.

Therefore a whole lot of subjective reasons are involved.

Old men of science said the messenger was a falling star asteroid...changes to the mountain....hearing of voice.

Science status says the not natural hearing of voice involved human life mind body harm. How was it spiritual medical advice opposed the statement.

The argument. When the heard voice was first heard it was spiritual...meaning was self human natural first and not harmed.

The reality who sought old man's science pyramid technology not themed...how changed was your life body from origin human to human first in spiritual terms for it as the hearing information?

Was the difference to a human being psychic...to a human brain burnt harmed changed mind irradiated. Two variables to human awareness and being advised. Hearing the voice.

Not even reasoned in conditions of our teaching.

Therefore the Egyptian Muslim saviour was based on attack to life cooling falling star saviour.

To the updated realisation as Egyptian science had not accepted the Muslim idea asteroid saviour as earth God owned human science the practice and not the cosmos.

To Egyptians falling star gain was natural history before science.

So they argued relativity as science does.

So ice the saviour had to be explained as owning fixed fusion Sion history that only manifested entirely when earth had cooled. But had been present in transition the whole time.

Space vacuum plus ice owned why earths fusion still existed. As cooling was first by earth law the vacuum one way out only.

In cosmic history.

The asteroid was depicted as iced water carrier. So cosmic law shifted from asteroid ownership the carrier ice to earths body.

As men tried to time shift God as earth into Infinity Inheritance as the science body mass like the star. As invention meant I will copy cosmic laws claiming nothing for earth the objective.

Reasoned earth in cooling body transition immaculate heavens owned an ice cooled crystalline facure. Atlantis it's term.

The sun converted earth as sAtanlit introducing melt of the facure.

Two changes dusts gained and melt as radiation conversion.

Men proved that they only inferred one conversion law dusts. Learnt when stone temple steps melted that melt occurred also.

The history of why men said they personally were the messenger as it was mans owned scientific theisms. Important to mans status. Life survival on earth.

 

[KWED]

Nope ! I am not a Calvinist.

Oh, there are more brands of religionist that believe in predestination than that. There is a good chance that yours does as well, even though you might not realise it. Happens surprisingly often.

However, I do believe that Almighty God knows what we perceive as the future. That is because Almighty God is not part of the universe [ space-time continuum ].

That means, in turn, that the future must be fixed .. is that correct?
Yes, it must be, as it means God knows what we all choose to do.

..so what fixes it? That would be us
It is no different from the past being fixed.
..and tomorrow will eventually become the past.
Do you understand? Many people don't, I find.

I think Einstein gets it.

The issue of infallible omniscience is one that is also often misunderstood by religionists, but it is not the same issue as predestination.

 

[KWED]

Here we go .. care to explain why?

For us to have free will to make the choice, at time T, between A and B, each option must be available.
If god has infallible knowledge of what that choice will be (infallible means "cannot be wrong"), then only one of those options is actually open at that moment - the one god knows we will chose.
It may seem entirely like free will to us at the time, but our "decision" is inevitable, a bit like an automated response in a chain of automated responses in a computer programme.

Of course, some religionists argue that god is merely observing our choices as we make them and do vague handwaving about god being "outside spacetime etc", but that is not the god that is described in the scriptures of the main religions, so can be dismissed in that context. The gods of these religions operate within and have effect on our universe, in a linear time fashion.

 

[Trailblazer]

So all gods who have messengers therefore necessarily exist?
Are all who claim to be "messengers of god" the genuine article, or just those belonging to your preferred version?

There is only one true God and He has many Messengers, one in every age.
Many people claim to be messengers of God, but that does not mean they ARE Messengers of God.
A true Messenger of God has evidence that backs up His claims, a false messenger has no such evidence.

IOW, "There is no supporting evidence, but I want to believe it".

No, that is not what I said.
I said: "the objective facts do not prove He was a Messenger of God but they indicate that He was, if interpreted properly." Nobody can ever prove that God sent Messengers since God cannot be proven to exist as an established fact, so all we can expect to have is evidence. Evidence is not the same as proof:

evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:
https://www.google.com/search

Exactly. Religious belief is just belief. Nothing more. No religionist can claim their belief is better or truer than any others.

However, if a belief contradicts known scientific evidence, that is an indication that the belief is false.

A religionist can claim that their belief is better but they can never prove it is better.
I agree that if a belief contradicts known scientific evidence, that is an indication that the belief is false.

So god doesn't mind if people worship false gods or no god at all? That's reassuring, and neatly rebuts Pascal's Wager.

It is not that God does not mind, it is that God does not need anyone's belief, since God has no needs. Since God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining God has no needs. God only wants us to believe in Him for our own benefit, everything that God wants us to do is for our own benefit.

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures.” Gleanings, p. 166

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

 

[Trailblazer]

Only if they can be confirmed as being sent by god, so you still have the same problem.

Nobody can confirm that as a fact, they can only look at the evidence and confirm it in their own mind.

Kinda does.
If god does not send messengers, or there is no god, it means that anyone claiming to be god's messenger is delusional or dishonest.

That's true but you do not know that God does not send Messengers.
Given the evidence we see in the world, there are three mutually exclusive logical possibilities:

1. God exists and sends Messengers to communicate to humans, or
2. God exists but does not communicate to humans, or
3. God does not exist

No, but if all we have are false messengers, it is unreasonable to insist that there definitely are real messengers.

That would be true IF all we had were false Messengers, but how do you know that there are no true Messengers?

It is a poor analogy because it assumes the existence of the thing you are trying to prove, so just more question begging. We already know new cars exist. We have clear, objective, verifiable evidence for them.
Also, if no one had ever seen a new car and our only experience was of old bangers, people would be naturally sceptical of claims that there exist these shiny, smooth, quiet wonders but we just have to believe it.

It does not assume the existence of true Messengers of God, it was only an analogy to make the point that the existence of false messengers in no way means that there cannot be true Messengers.

Let's say that you were an alien who just landed on earth in a junkyard and you had never seen a new car. You might believe that no new cars exist since you had never seen one, but that does not mean that new cars do not exist.

God would give his true messengers some means by which they could prove their validity. (Of course, claiming "but Jesus/Muhammad/whoever did miracles" is just more unsupported claims. There is zero evidence for any miracle.

God could give his true messengers some means by which they could prove their validity, but why would God do that? God did give the Messengers such a method and it could have been used had the Messengers chosen to use it. Baha'u'llah could have appeared to us as superhuman, but only those who saw Him would have seen that and everyone else would have had to take their word for what they had witnessed.

So let's say that Jesus or Muhammad had performed miracles and it was recorded in scriptures. how would miracles be proof to anyone else except those who actually witnessed them? How would you be able to verify that they had performed miracles?

Straw man. Not aware of anyone making that claim.

I did not say that anyone made that claim, I was just explaining that fallacy.

And none have provided any such evidence.
Remember, a person claiming to be a messenger of god is not evidence that they were. Neither is you believing those claims.

Well obviously a claim does not constitute evidence and me believing that claim is not evidence. Anyone can make a claim and anyone can believe a claim, but that is not evidence of anything at all.

The highlighted bit is the part you are still failing to demonstrate. You are just assuming that there must be true messengers.

I m not assuming that there must be true Messengers. I did my due diligence in order to determine if there were any. I cannot demonstrate that to anyone else because we all have to do our own due diligence. Otherwise you would just be taking my word for it ans that is never a good thing. We all have to do our own independent investigation.

And the facts are that is no evidence that any claims "messenger of god" actually was one.
So, no evidence for god, no evidence for any true messengers. What part of that convinces you that there is a god or that a particular person was a true messenger?

There is evidence but there is no proof because such a thing cannot be proven as a fact, it can only be proven to oneself.

Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate most claimants, since they will fail to meet all the criteria.

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.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem with this argument is that it means that any accurate groundbreaking new idea, discovery or invention must be proof of god, which I'm sure you agree is nonsense.

I said: "So why wouldn't it be evidence for God if Baha'u'llah described knowledge that the people of His time could not possibly have had?"

I was not referring to an accurate groundbreaking new idea, discovery or invention; I was referring to something that nobody living at that time of the Messenger knew, something only the Messenger knew.

I do not believe that would be proof of God because there are prophets and psychics who can see into the future so that ability alone does not mean they were Messengers of God. However, if an alleged Messenger of God knew many things that nobody living in His time knew that would be a reason to take note and look further into His claims.

Baha’u’llah predicted many things that later came to pass. In this book, which can be read online, is a list of 30 specific things Baha’u’llah predicted that later came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

1. The fall from power of the French Emperor Napoleon III and the consequent loss of his empire.
2. The defeat of Germany in two bloody wars, resulting in the 'lamentations of Berlin'.
3. The success and stability of Queen Victoria's reign.
4. The dismissal of 'All Pasha as prime minister of Turkey.
5. The overthrow and murder of Sultan 'Abdu'l-'Aziz of Turkey.
6. The breakup of the Ottoman Empire, leading to the extinction of the 'outward splendour' of its capital, Constantinople.
7. The downfall of Nasiri'd-Din Shah, the Persian monarch.
8. The advent of constitutional government in Persia.
9. A massive (albeit temporary) decline in the fortunes of monarchy throughout the world.
10. A worldwide erosion of ecclesiastical authority.
11. The collapse of the Muslim Caliphate.
12. The spread of communism, the 'Movement of the Left', and its rise to world power.
13. The catastrophic decline of that same movement, triggered by the collapse of its egalitarian economy.
14. The rise of Israel as a Jewish homeland.
15. The persecution of Jews on the European continent (the Nazi holocaust).
16. America's violent racial struggles.
17. Baha'u'llah's release from the prison of 'Akka and the pitching of His tent on Mount Carmel.
18. The seizure and desecration of Baha'u'llah's House in Baghdad.
19. The failure of all attempts to create schism within the Baha'i Faith.
20. The explosive acceleration of scientific and technological progress.
21. The development of nuclear weapons.
22. The achievement of transmutation of elements, the age-old alchemist's dream.
23. Dire peril for all humanity as a result of that achievement.
24. The discovery that complex elements evolve in nature from simpler ones.
25. The recognition of planets as a necessary byproduct of star formation.
26. Space travel.
27. The realization that some forms of cancer are communicable.
28. Failure to find evidence for a 'missing link' between man and ape.
29. The non-existence of a mechanical ether (the supposed light-carrying substance posited by classical physics), and its redefinition as an abstract reality.
30. The breakdown of mechanical models (literal images) as a basis for understanding the physical world.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Of course, some religionists argue that god is merely observing our choices as we make them and do vague handwaving about god being "outside spacetime etc", but that is not the god that is described in the scriptures of the main religions, so can be dismissed in that context. The gods of these religions operate within and have effect on our universe, in a linear time fashion.

No .. Almighty God created the universe.
The universe is a space-time continuum.
It follows that He is not subject to time.
He sees all [ 4 dimensions ].

Now, I understand that you are arguing that God cannot interact with the universe, but that is not correct.
The universe belongs to Him, and I would like to know how you can understand with such confidence about an infinite God, with your finite mind

 

[Trailblazer]

For us to have free will to make the choice, at time T, between A and B, each option must be available.
If god has infallible knowledge of what that choice will be (infallible means "cannot be wrong"), then only one of those options is actually open at that moment - the one god knows we will chose.

It is true that we will choose what God knows we will choose but that is ONLY because what God knows we will choose is identical with what we will choose. God's knowledge does not cause us to choose what we choose. We choose what we choose according to our own free will.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

 

[Sheldon]

So much for free will.

Here we go .. care to explain why?

That means, in turn, that the future must be fixed

He didn't believe in a personal god that intervened in the universe, so no most assuredly not.

That is not relevant to his understanding of time.

Straw man yet again as I never claimed it was, read the response in the context it was offered, rather than misrepresenting it.

 

[Sheldon]

Firstly that's just a speculation see the big if, secondly how would one establish it was knowledge he couldn't possibly have had? This would have to be a falsifiable idea, otherwise it would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, logically nothing is either proved nor disproved through a lack of evidence. So simply have something you can't explain, doesn't rationally mean you can assign a divine agency to it. Not knowing is not knowing.

This was not about....

My post was about and in response to, this and only this...

So why wouldn't it be evidence for God if Baha'u'llah described knowledge that the people of His time could not possibly have had?

Asked, and answered...

 

[Sheldon]

They are better to me because they were written by a Manifestation of God.

That is just a bare claim.

 

[Sheldon]

There is only one true God

Macuilcozcacuauhtli, the Aztec deity of gluttony...

All hail Macuilcozcacuauhtli...nuff said.