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

[Trailblazer]

Then how do ordinary mortals think it reasonable to believe in any number of many gods?

The evidence.

Your evidence for your God doesn't even matter with other theists, and vise versa. So it's not just atheists, it's any other competing idea of a God or gods. This is what tells us it is cultural. You would believe in your version of God without there being an established ideology. You just happened to pick the option for the religion buffet that looked tasty to you.

Why would it matter if it matters to other theists? Evidence is evidence and all people assign different meanings to the evidence. Some people believe it means nothing and some people believe that it proves that the Baha'i Faith is a true religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

I do not understand your question. God would not come down to verify Himself as a Messenger from God because God is not a Messenger from God. God is God and God never comes down to earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence.

Why would it matter if it matters to other theists? Evidence is evidence and all people assign different meanings to the evidence. Some people believe it means nothing and some people believe that it proves that the Baha'i Faith is a true religion.

No, evidence is not all equal. And you should remember the adage "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I don't think that you have even provided what would qualify as ordinary evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not understand your question. God would not come down to verify Himself as a Messenger from God because God is not a Messenger from God. God is God and God never comes down to earth.

Because he doesn't exist?

 

[F1fan]

Sorry but no. Evidence does not have to be verifiable and that is not what makes it evidence.
There is evidence and there is verifiable evidence. All evidence is not verifiable evidence.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

OK, give us an example of evidence that helps to prove something that also is not verifiable.

Evidence

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

Facts and information are verifiable.

Evidence

is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. ‘
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Now this suggests witness testimony, and this is the worst of all types of evidence, but is often the most relied on. Look how many rape cases there have been where a victim misidentified the rapist. Or any number of crimes where someone was misidentified. So personal experience and belief can be very much in error, especially without other witnesses.

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

It's funny you had to look all this up. And it helps my case. Verifiable means others can check the facts or evidence for authenticity. If Danny claims he saw Bigfoot, but it was dark and he had quite a few beers, would his testimony be verifiable without any other evidence?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is empirical evidence?

Definition and explanation
Empirical evidence is the evidence that we directly observe and get from our senses. This might be contrasted to philosophical or theoretical reasoning, which can be done without any direct observation of ‘real life’.
https://conceptually.org/concepts/empirical-evidence.

God does leave empirical evidence. The religions of God that the Messengers of God establish that we can directly observe and get from our senses are the evidence that God exists.

Wait - so now you think that God can be demonstrated by empirical evidence? A minute ago you said he couldn't be.

 

[Trailblazer]

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 all sorts of different gods and people who claim to be messengers for the same god yet say entirely different things.

Of course I understand why the simple existence of people who claim to speak for God is not actual evidence of God. Anyone can 'claim' to speak for God but that does not mean that they are actually speaking for God.

The Messengers who really did speak for God said different things because they came to different people at different times. Why would God send a *new* Messenger if He did not have a *new* message to reveal?

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.

This method can never work for proving the existence of God because what you would expect to see if God existed can never be known. Moreover, what YOU would expect to see is highly subjective because other people would expect to see something else, so this method cannot be used to prove God exists.

I have no hypothesis, I have a belief which is based upon the evidence.

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.

In my OP I said that 'God does not exist' is one of the three logical possibilities.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

However I vote for # 1.
1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.

I believe there IS evidence for God's existence, so I don't need to go back to the drawing board.

 

[Trailblazer]

Regarding your claim that atheists are continually asking you for evidence of a god, I haven't seen that.

Then I guess you do not read much on this forum. That is practically all they ever ask me for.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sagan concludes by asking: "Now what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?"

Do you recognize your own account of God in that? Why don't we see him? He doesn't feel like being seen and won't do what he doesn't want to do. Why can't I hear him? Only messengers can hear him.

I have a very simple answer to those questions -- because God does not CHOOSE to be seen by anyone, and God does not CHOOSE to be heard by anyone except His Messengers, and since God is omnipotent God gets to choose how He will communicate to humans. Humans do not get to choose what God will do because we are not omnipotent.

That is my belief and it makes sense to me, which is why I believe it.

 

[F1fan]

"Elf" is a term from a specific category of literature used to refer to a specific imaginary class of beings.

And how do gods differ that are referred to in literature like the Bible and Quran?

"God" is a term used in a very different category of literature used to refer to the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. The 'Being' of all being: 'omni-being'.

How a word is used does not imply it is objectively true or plausible. That modern people think the Bible and Quran and Utantia book state facts is their belief, and carries no weight as evidence. So how are elves different than gods as referenced characters in literature? And let's note there are no more facts for one than the other.

As you can easily see, they come from VERY different categories of literature, and refer to a VERY different class of imaginary beings. But then I doubt that you were ever really confused about this.

By your argument you can say the fictional characters in historical fiction, like Robin Hood or Charles Carton, are more credible than the characters in the category of fantasy fiction like Lord of the Rings. But it's all still fiction. I understand that theists don't want to see their holy literature as fiction, but reviewing the content is more like fantasy fiction than historic fiction.

All in all you completely avoid the fact that there ARE NO FACTS for supernatural beings. Elves are fantasy fiction but they are more plausible than the gods we read and hear about, who can't be seen, but somehow ordinary mortals "know" they exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then I guess you do not read much on this forum. That is practically all they ever ask me for.

They only ask you that when you claim to have evidence either directly or indirectly.

 

[F1fan]

Then I guess you do not read much on this forum. That is practically all they ever ask me for.

After you make fantastic claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a very simple answer to those questions -- because God does not CHOOSE to be seen by anyone, and God does not CHOOSE to be heard by anyone except His Messengers, and since God is omnipotent God gets to choose how He will communicate to humans. Humans do not get to choose what God will do because we are not omnipotent.

That is my belief and it makes sense to me, which is why I believe it.

So God is the world champion of hide and seek.

 

[Trailblazer]

Simple. a good starter would be that all theists wake up tomorrow and believe in the same exact God.

That would, at least, show me that She decided to prove that She is not such a miserable communicator, after all.

ciao

- viole

I believe that will happen eventually, but not for a very long time. In order for that to happen all theists would have to recognize Baha'u'llah, who said that there is only one true God and only one religion of God, which is revealed in various chapters throughout history. I believe that in the future everyone will recognize Baha'u'llah because of what He wrote.

“Warn and acquaint the people, O Servant, with the things We have sent down unto Thee, and let the fear of no one dismay Thee, and be Thou not of them that waver. The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.”Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 248

 

[HonestJoe]

Of course I understand why the simple existence of people who claim to speak for God is not actual evidence of God. Anyone can 'claim' to speak for God but that does not mean that they are actually speaking for God.

Hence why none of them are evidence for God, regardless of what they say.

This method can never work for proving the existence of God because what you would expect to see if God existed can never be known.

If you're proposing a God which can't be proven to exist, demanding other people say what could be evidence for that God would be irrational and/or dishonest.

I have no hypothesis, I have a belief which is based upon the evidence.

You can't have evidence without a hypothesis (even if you don't realise that's what it is). Also, if you have evidence, why would you need belief? Call it what you want, you can't ask people what evidence would be if you don't first explain exactly what is being evidenced.

And if you have evidence, why do you need anyone else to tell you what the evidence for God would be? Who are you really trying to convince here?

 

[F1fan]

The evidence.

So any person who claims their god exists has evidence? And these gods ofter conflict with others, so how can there be evidence of the ONE GOD and there be evidence for other gods as well?

Can you concede the evidence you refer to here is ONLY relevant to the individual believer. and worthless to anyone else?

Why would it matter if it matters to other theists? Evidence is evidence and all people assign different meanings to the evidence. Some people believe it means nothing and some people believe that it proves that the Baha'i Faith is a true religion.

If theists like yourself are arguing for the existence of YOUR particular god then the claims of other theists are competition. By your lax attitude it seems to suggest you are approaching all this from a "personal belief" perspective and don't care about other types theists. But then that only damages the arguments that god exists as a fixed and actual thing that can be defined to an adequate degree.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it is convincing to others that are not of your religion. it is very probably reliable evidence.

If it is not convincing to others that are not of my religion that is not because it is not reliable evidence.

Below are seven reasons why more people have not recognized the evidence for Baha’u’llah, yet.

1. Many people have never heard of the Baha’i Faith, so they do not know there is something to look for. It is the responsibility of the Baha’is to get the message out, so if that is not happening, the Baha’is are to blame. However, there are so few Baha’is and they are busy building the New World Order, and there is only so much time, so they can only do so much.

2. But even after people know about the Baha’i Faith, most people are not even willing to look the evidence in order to determine if it is true or not.

3. Even if they are willing to look at the evidence, there is a lot of prejudice before even getting out the door to look at the evidence.

4. 84% of people in the world already have a religion and they are happy with their religion so they have no interest in a “new religion.”

5. The rest of the world’s population is agnostics or atheists or believers who are prejudiced against all religion.

6. Agnostics or atheists and atheists and believers who have no religion either do not believe that God communicates via Messengers or they find fault with the Messenger, Baha’u’llah.

7. Baha’u’llah brought new teachings and laws that are very different from the older religions so many people are suspicious of those teachings and/or don’t like the laws because some laws require them to give things up that they like doing.

 

[F1fan]

If it is not convincing to others that are not of my religion that is not because it is not reliable evidence.

Below are seven reasons why more people have not recognized the evidence for Baha’u’llah, yet.

1. Many people have never heard of the Baha’i Faith, so they do not know there is something to look for. It is the responsibility of the Baha’is to get the message out, so if that is not happening, the Baha’is are to blame. However, there are so few Baha’is and they are busy building the New World Order, and there is only so much time, so they can only do so much.

2. But even after people know about the Baha’i Faith, most people are not even willing to look the evidence in order to determine if it is true or not.

3. Even if they are willing to look at the evidence, there is a lot of prejudice before even getting out the door to look at the evidence.

4. 84% of people in the world already have a religion and they are happy with their religion so they have no interest in a “new religion.”

5. The rest of the world’s population is agnostics or atheists or believers who are prejudiced against all religion.

6. Agnostics or atheists and atheists and believers who have no religion either do not believe that God communicates via Messengers or they find fault with the Messenger, Baha’u’llah.

7. Baha’u’llah brought new teachings and laws that are very different from the older religions so many people are suspicious of those teachings and/or don’t like the laws because some laws require them to give things up that they like doing.

Propaganda.

 

[Trailblazer]

You think you use logic. Your evidence for your claims has poor quality evidence, so it's not compelling.

What is poor quality evidence to one person is good evidence to another. Whether it is good or poor is completely subjective.

It would be a start if atheists could at least understand this basic concept. They can still say that the evidence does not mean anything to them because they consider it poor.

You offer no facts for the most substantive parts of your claims, namely that some sort of god exists. You often argue assuming a god exists, and this is an error.

There are facts that surround the Revelation of Baha'u'llah but that is all the facts we can have. We can never have facts about God, only beliefs.

I do not assume a God exists, I believe a God exists. I do not think anyone should ever assume God exists without evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it is not convincing to others that are not of my religion that is not because it is not reliable evidence.

Below are seven reasons why more people have not recognized the evidence for Baha’u’llah, yet.

1. Many people have never heard of the Baha’i Faith, so they do not know there is something to look for. It is the responsibility of the Baha’is to get the message out, so if that is not happening, the Baha’is are to blame. However, there are so few Baha’is and they are busy building the New World Order, and there is only so much time, so they can only do so much.

2. But even after people know about the Baha’i Faith, most people are not even willing to look the evidence in order to determine if it is true or not.

3. Even if they are willing to look at the evidence, there is a lot of prejudice before even getting out the door to look at the evidence.

4. 84% of people in the world already have a religion and they are happy with their religion so they have no interest in a “new religion.”

5. The rest of the world’s population is agnostics or atheists or believers who are prejudiced against all religion.

6. Agnostics or atheists and atheists and believers who have no religion either do not believe that God communicates via Messengers or they find fault with the Messenger, Baha’u’llah.

7. Baha’u’llah brought new teachings and laws that are very different from the older religions so many people are suspicious of those teachings and/or don’t like the laws because some laws require them to give things up that they like doing.

You forgot the most important one. Because reliable evidence does not exist.

It is all on the order of "Because Jimmy said so".