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

[Trailblazer]

Nonsense.

How do you know it is nonsense, have you done the necessary research into the Bible prophecies and how they were fulfilled?

Thief in the Night by William Sears

If you don't understand that doctrine to be equal to any other religious doctrine, you go right ahead and believe you've found the "one, true religion." Like every other believer of every other religion on the planet, throughout history.

You have no logical abilities, you respond purely on your bias, so there is no point trying to have a disscussion with you.

If you are trying to say that the Baha’i Faith is no different from all the other religions that is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:

1. religion a is x
2. religion b is x
3. religion c is x
4. religion d is x
5. religion e is x
6. religion f is x
7. religion g is x

8. Therefore, religion h (in this case the Baha’i Faith) is just like all the other religions.

I'm happy that they make you happy. Yet I'm saddened that you're unable to expand beyond the believer's arrogance that only they are correct. Somehow, in your world, everyone else is wrong, every other religion doesn't quite get it. There is no greater arrogance than this.

Surprise, surprise! My religion does not teach that it is the only true religion. I'd be careful with the fallacy of jumping to conclusions if I were you. There are things you do not know about.

“Let no one, however, mistake my purpose. The Revelation, of which Bahá’u’lláh is the source and center, abrogates none of the religions that have preceded it, nor does it attempt, in the slightest degree, to distort their features or to belittle their value. It disclaims any intention of dwarfing any of the Prophets of the past, or of whittling down the eternal verity of their teachings. It can, in no wise, conflict with the spirit that animates their claims, nor does it seek to undermine the basis of any man’s allegiance to their cause. Its declared, its primary purpose is to enable every adherent of these Faiths to obtain a fuller understanding of the religion with which he stands identified, and to acquire a clearer apprehension of its purpose. It is neither eclectic in the presentation of its truths, nor arrogant in the affirmation of its claims. Its teachings revolve around the fundamental principle that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is progressive, not final. Unequivocally and without the least reservation it proclaims all established religions to be divine in origin, identical in their aims, complementary in their functions, continuous in their purpose, indispensable in their value to mankind.”
The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, pp, 57-58

Fundamental Principle of Religious Truth

 

[Trailblazer]

How does time dilation at relativistic speeds explain how God has knowledge of a future that hasn't yet happened?

There is no scientific explanation as to how God has knowledge of a future that hasn't yet happened yet.
Science cannot explain anything about God.

You either accept the religious explanation or you will have no explanation at all.
The religious explanation makes logical sense because God would not expect humans to believe what they cannot accommodate with their logical minds.

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you reach that conclusion? All rational people all agree on the speed of light based on the objective evidence. All rational people agree on the shape of the Earth based on the objective evidence. Why can't all rational people agree on religion in the same way?

If you have not figured that out by now I doubt you ever will.

Myriad times I have explained this to you. The objective evidence for certain scientific facts have been proven to be true, so most people accept them as true, but the objective facts surrounding a religion can never be proven to mean that the religion is true, since nobody can prove that God ever did jack squat, let alone spoke to a Messenger.

Use your rational mind and try to think if how it would be possible for everyone to agree that one religion is true.
Let's just say that the objective evidence for the Baha'i Faith means it is true, that it is the latest religion from God. Why would people who were raised as Jews or Christians or Muslims or Hindus suddenly recognize the objective evidence for the Baha'i Faith as meaning it is the truth from God as opposed to what they already believe is the truth? However, the fact that they do not recognize that does not mean it is not objective evidence for the Baha'i Faith that means it is true. It only means that people are biased towards what they already believe, so unless they are sincerely searching for another religion they are not going to recognize the evidence for another religion that indicates it is true. The same holds true for atheists. Unless they are sincerely searching for a religion they will never recognize the evidence for any religion that indicates it is true.

 

[Tiberius]

There is no scientific explanation as to how God has knowledge of a future that hasn't yet happened yet.
Science cannot explain anything about God.

You either accept the religious explanation or you will have no explanation at all.
The religious explanation makes logical sense because God would not expect humans to believe what they cannot accommodate with their logical minds.

You might want to explain this to @muhammad_isa who seems to think that science (specifically, relativity) can explain how God can have knowledge of the future. He has made that claim HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

 

[Tiberius]

If you have not figured that out by now I doubt you ever will.

Myriad times I have explained this to you. The objective evidence for certain scientific facts have been proven to be true, so most people accept them as true, but the objective facts surrounding a religion can never be proven to mean that the religion is true, since nobody can prove that God ever did jack squat, let alone spoke to a Messenger.

And as I have explained to you countless times...

IF YOU CAN'T PROVE A FACT TO BE TRUE, YOU CAN'T CLAIM IT IS OBJECTIVE.

Use your rational mind and try to think if how it would be possible for everyone to agree that one religion is true.
Let's just say that the objective evidence for the Baha'i Faith means it is true, that it is the latest religion from God. Why would people who were raised as Jews or Christians or Muslims or Hindus suddenly recognize the objective evidence for the Baha'i Faith as meaning it is the truth from God as opposed to what they already believe is the truth?

If there was actual objective evidence, you would see rational people accept it, since rational people will accept that objective evidence overrules their subjective beliefs.

However, the fact that they do not recognize that does not mean it is not objective evidence for the Baha'i Faith that means it is true. It only means that people are biased towards what they already believe, so unless they are sincerely searching for another religion they are not going to recognize the evidence for another religion that indicates it is true. The same holds true for atheists. Unless they are sincerely searching for a religion they will never recognize the evidence for any religion that indicates it is true.

"Unless they are sincerely searching for a religion..."

Do you see the flaw here?

You have people seeking a religion, which they will only do if they have already concluded that some religious belief is true. They are reaching their conclusion and then seeking evidence to support that conclusion, and that's a logical fallacy.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have a great skill of missing the point.

I understood your point and I responded with a rational answer. Now you are deflecting away from my response because you have no rational answer since you well know that children are not responsible for themselves or for caring for other children but rather adults are responsible for children. Of course, when children get older they can be more responsible for themselves and it varies by the child. When I was 12 years old, I was babysitting for a one-year-old baby.

God did not create that life, the parents created life when they had sex and had children.

And I didn't create the life of the children I saw playing in the busy street.

If you choose not to care about other people’s children just because they are not yours that is your choice but don’t try to say that God should step in like Superman and save a child who ran out into the street when you are standing right there and can easily do that yourself

Then why does God step in and send messengers and tell us how he wants us to live?

God steps in and sends Messengers so we will know how to live, what is moral and immoral, how we should conduct ourselves and how we should behave towards other people.

Honestly, I'm not surprised by this point that your position is inconsistent.

There is nothing inconsistent. God sends Messengers but that is all that God does to intervene in man’s affairs because that is all that man needs from God. God might also respond to prayers on a case-by-case basis but there is no reason to think that God should intervene in this world and play Superman.

God sends the Messengers out of His kindness and mercy, not because He has to send them (x), and humans in turn are responsible for recognizing those Messengers (y). This is the agreement between God and man, called a Covenant; God agrees to do x if we do y. However, most humans do not keep their part of the agreement (y) since most humans do not recognize and follow the Messengers.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you seriously suggesting that something which has been proven could still be wrong?

That is not what I said. I said that the proof is not what makes it true. If it was true, it would be true whether there was proof or not. For example, even before there was proof that the world was round the world was round. Even before the Americas were discovered and proven to exist they existed. Proof does not MAKE anything true, proof is just what people want in order to know that something is true.

Ah, are we back to hiding behind the "I'm not making claims, I'm just stating my belief!" now, are we?

I am not hiding behind anything, I am just telling the truth.

If it cannot be proven to be true, then you are never justified in saying it is true. Again, this is logic 101.

I can say I believe whatever I want to say I believe and I do not need to justify what I believe to anyone except myself.

The wildly inconsistent results beg to differ.

Regarding spiritual reality, there are some differences between religious beliefs and there are many similarities. The differences that exist are because the religions were revealed in different ages to different people who had a different capacity to comprehend spiritual truth.

Again, the wildly inconsistent results beg to differ.

There are some differences between religious beliefs and there are many similarities. The differences that exist are because the religions were revealed in different ages to different people.

You really need to pay attention. I've stated many times now that any method which claims to be able to discover accurate information about reality MUST be held to the same standard. That is, we need some way to verify it. Your repeated insistence that religion be exempt from having to support its claims only shows that it has no basis as a method by which to find accurate information.

You really need to pay attention. There is no way to verify that a religious belief is true, except to oneself.

In other words, the best you got is opinion, not fact.

No, in other words, I cannot prove to you that the facts surrounding my religion mean that the religion is true, for obvious logical reasons. Obviously, you know nothing about human psychology or the human mind and how it operates.

 

[Trailblazer]

I got knowledge from God that your religious beliefs are wrong. I know it for certain because it came from God. So you can't disagree with me and you must accept that your religious views are wrong.

I can disagree with you. I do not believe you got anything from God. You can disagree with me and not believe I got anything from God.

And if you can't prove it, then there's no reason to see it as anything more than an interesting idea.

It can be proven, but only to yourself.

And yet you rely on excuses to justify your belief in a spiritual reality.

I make no excuses because I don't need any.

And luckily for religion, the standards it has to meet are so low that any old nonsense could meet them.

But any old nonsense is not true.

Religion is bunk.

It has no objectively true bearing on reality at all.

"objectively true bearing on reality"

Since objectively true bearing on physical reality is all you care about so why bother to talk to people who believe otherwise?

Religion has bearing on spiritual reality, which is ALL that will matter at the end of this life.

 

[Trailblazer]

And as I have explained to you countless times...

IF YOU CAN'T PROVE A FACT TO BE TRUE, YOU CAN'T CLAIM IT IS OBJECTIVE.

I can claim whatever I want to claim, this is a public forum.

If it cannot be proven true it is not a fact:

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

But even if it cannot be proven true to everyone it can still be an objective truth.

If something is objective, it has correspondence with reality. Objective truth is something that is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. At one time this was simply called “truth.”
What is objective truth? | GotQuestions.org

If there was actual objective evidence, you would see rational people accept it, since rational people will accept that objective evidence overrules their subjective beliefs.

No, that would not believe it just because it was actual objective evidence. All you are doing is projecting your personal opinion of what you believe you would do onto other people.

You are completely irrational and I cannot do anything with that.

“Rational people will accept that objective evidence overrules their subjective beliefs.”
What planet are you living on?

The objective evidence can mean many different things to many different people. It will never mean the same thing to everyone because all people think and process information differently. Moreover all people based decisions on thoughts and feelings, so emotions will always affect their decisions.

"Unless they are sincerely searching for a religion..."

Do you see the flaw here?

You have people seeking a religion, which they will only do if they have already concluded that some religious belief is true. They are reaching their conclusion and then seeking evidence to support that conclusion, and that's a logical fallacy.

You are dead wrong becaue a true seeker has NEVER already concluded that some religious belief is true. If they had concluded that before seeking they would not be a true seeker.

A true seeker would NEVER reach their conclusion and then seek evidence to support that conclusion.

In seeking God one must put aside all acquired knowledge and all attachments to what one wants; one must put aside both love and hate; one must wash away both pride and vain-glory; and one must cling to patience.

These are some of the requirements of the True Seeker.

Tablet of the True Seeker

“O My brother! When a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading unto the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse his heart, which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments of satanic fancy. He must purge his breast, which is the sanctuary of the abiding love of the Beloved, of every defilement, and sanctify his soul from all that pertaineth to water and clay, from all shadowy and ephemeral attachments. He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth…..

That seeker must, at all times, put his trust in God, must renounce the peoples of the earth, must detach himself from the world of dust, and cleave unto Him Who is the Lord of Lords. He must never seek to exalt himself above any one, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride and vain-glory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe silence and refrain from idle talk.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 264-265

 

[Hidingfromyou]

And as I have explained to you countless times...

IF YOU CAN'T PROVE A FACT TO BE TRUE, YOU CAN'T CLAIM IT IS OBJECTIVE.



If there was actual objective evidence, you would see rational people accept it, since rational people will accept that objective evidence overrules their subjective beliefs.



"Unless they are sincerely searching for a religion..."

Do you see the flaw here?

You have people seeking a religion, which they will only do if they have already concluded that some religious belief is true. They are reaching their conclusion and then seeking evidence to support that conclusion, and that's a logical fallacy.

Thanks for taking over. Heh

It was fun, dropping in on the believers. I think that's as far as I'm going to go, though.

I can only take the ignorance and arrogance so long . . . sometimes you need to bang your head against a wall, but it's probably more fun to stop.

Have a good one!

 

[Tiberius]

I understood your point and I responded with a rational answer. Now you are deflecting away from my response because you have no rational answer since you well know that children are not responsible for themselves or for caring for other children but rather adults are responsible for children. Of course, when children get older they can be more responsible for themselves and it varies by the child. When I was 12 years old, I was babysitting for a one-year-old baby.

God did not create that life, the parents created life when they had sex and had children.

So if God is not responsible for humans, why does he keep sending new messengers to them?

If you choose not to care about other people’s children just because they are not yours that is your choice but don’t try to say that God should step in like Superman and save a child who ran out into the street when you are standing right there and can easily do that yourself

And what about situations where there is nothing any person can do?

God steps in and sends Messengers so we will know how to live, what is moral and immoral, how we should conduct ourselves and how we should behave towards other people.

Why would he even care about that? As you said, God isn't responsible for Humans.

There is nothing inconsistent. God sends Messengers but that is all that God does to intervene in man’s affairs because that is all that man needs from God. God might also respond to prayers on a case-by-case basis but there is no reason to think that God should intervene in this world and play Superman.

God sends the Messengers out of His kindness and mercy, not because He has to send them (x), and humans in turn are responsible for recognizing those Messengers (y). This is the agreement between God and man, called a Covenant; God agrees to do x if we do y. However, most humans do not keep their part of the agreement (y) since most humans do not recognize and follow the Messengers.

Yeah, still seems really inconsistent to me.

 

[Tiberius]

That is not what I said. I said that the proof is not what makes it true. If it was true, it would be true whether there was proof or not. For example, even before there was proof that the world was round the world was round. Even before the Americas were discovered and proven to exist they existed. Proof does not MAKE anything true, proof is just what people want in order to know that something is true.

You've got it all turned around.

This isn't about something that is true even if there is no proof that it is true, this is about something that is wrong even if it is proven true.

I am not hiding behind anything, I am just telling the truth.

And yet you fall back to that every time you are asked to support your position.

I can say I believe whatever I want to say I believe and I do not need to justify what I believe to anyone except myself.

True.

But you shouldn't expect anyone to believe you. And if you can't back it up with actual logic, then you shouldn't be surprised

Regarding spiritual reality, there are some differences between religious beliefs and there are many similarities. The differences that exist are because the religions were revealed in different ages to different people who had a different capacity to comprehend spiritual truth.

That is a very unconvincing argument.

There are some differences between religious beliefs and there are many similarities. The differences that exist are because the religions were revealed in different ages to different people.

If something is the truth, as in actual truth in reality, then this does not happen.

You really need to pay attention. There is no way to verify that a religious belief is true, except to oneself.

Yes, you've said that many times. Perhaps you've forgotten that each time I tell you that is not actually verification.

No, in other words, I cannot prove to you that the facts surrounding my religion mean that the religion is true, for obvious logical reasons. Obviously, you know nothing about human psychology or the human mind and how it operates.

If you can't demonstrate it to anyone else, why do you think anyone would ever accept it as correct?

 

[Tiberius]

I can disagree with you. I do not believe you got anything from God. You can disagree with me and not believe I got anything from God.

So all each of us have is opinion.

It can be proven, but only to yourself.

As I've told you so many times I've lost count, THAT'S NOT PROOF.

I make no excuses because I don't need any.

You don't think you need any, you mean, and that's only because you've coinvinced yourself that your belief is right.

But any old nonsense is not true.

But it would still meet the standards you set for religion.

"objectively true bearing on reality"

Since objectively true bearing on physical reality is all you care about so why bother to talk to people who believe otherwise?

Religion has bearing on spiritual reality, which is ALL that will matter at the end of this life.

And you just said that spiritual reality is objectively true. Since I (as you said) only care about what is objectively true, I'm simply asking you to provide more than just your assurance that this spiritual reality you speak of is objectively true.

Honestly, I don't get why you are surprised by this.

 

[Trailblazer]

So if God is not responsible for humans, why does he keep sending new messengers to them?

Because He loves them…

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

And what about situations where there is nothing any person can do?

That is just the sad reality off this earthly life.

Why would he even care about that? As you said, God isn't responsible for Humans.

God cares because He loves us and He wants what is best for us. God does not need anything for Himself so that is one way we know that whatever we get is only by God’s mercy and grace.

“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

Yeah, still seems really inconsistent to me.

I still don’t know why it seems that way.

 

[Tiberius]

I can claim whatever I want to claim, this is a public forum.

If it cannot be proven true it is not a fact:

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

But even if it cannot be proven true to everyone it can still be an objective truth.

If something is objective, it has correspondence with reality. Objective truth is something that is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. At one time this was simply called “truth.”
What is objective truth? | GotQuestions.org

Once again you completely miss the point I am making.

If a person says, "I can not prove that X is true," then that person has no justification for the claim, "X is objectively true."

No, that would not believe it just because it was actual objective evidence. All you are doing is projecting your personal opinion of what you believe you would do onto other people.

I said a RATIONAL person, as in a hypothetical person who always behaves in the most rational manner.

You are completely irrational and I cannot do anything with that.

Oh, ad hominem attacks. Delightful

You are dead wrong becaue a true seeker has NEVER already concluded that some religious belief is true. If they had concluded that before seeking they would not be a true seeker.

A true seeker would NEVER reach their conclusion and then seek evidence to support that conclusion.

In seeking God one must put aside all acquired knowledge and all attachments to what one wants; one must put aside both love and hate; one must wash away both pride and vain-glory; and one must cling to patience.

These are some of the requirements of the True Seeker.

Tablet of the True Seeker

“O My brother! When a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading unto the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse his heart, which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments of satanic fancy. He must purge his breast, which is the sanctuary of the abiding love of the Beloved, of every defilement, and sanctify his soul from all that pertaineth to water and clay, from all shadowy and ephemeral attachments. He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth…..

That seeker must, at all times, put his trust in God, must renounce the peoples of the earth, must detach himself from the world of dust, and cleave unto Him Who is the Lord of Lords. He must never seek to exalt himself above any one, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride and vain-glory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe silence and refrain from idle talk.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 264-265

I'm not interested in your proselytizing.

 

[CG Didymus]

Because religion's different from science!

So, I wonder if claims like there is a God and he is like this or that... and that some guy says that he is a messenger from God, can't be proven scientifically, then how soon does it degenerate into superstition and fanaticism? In some ways, it seems pretty early on, doesn't it?

The harmony of science and religion is one of the fundamental principles of the Bahá’í Faith, which teaches that religion, without science, soon degenerates into superstition and fanaticism, while science without religion becomes merely the instrument of crude materialism.

 

[CG Didymus]

These are some of the requirements of the True Seeker.

Tablet of the True Seeker

“O My brother! When a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading unto the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse his heart, which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments of satanic fancy. He must purge his breast, which is the sanctuary of the abiding love of the Beloved, of every defilement, and sanctify his soul from all that pertaineth to water and clay, from all shadowy and ephemeral attachments. He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth…..

That seeker must, at all times, put his trust in God, must renounce the peoples of the earth, must detach himself from the world of dust, and cleave unto Him Who is the Lord of Lords. He must never seek to exalt himself above any one, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride and vain-glory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe silence and refrain from idle talk.”

And who has done this?

 

[Trailblazer]

You've got it all turned around.

This isn't about something that is true even if there is no proof that it is true, this is about something that is wrong even if it is proven true.

How could it be wrong if it was proven to be true?

And yet you fall back to that every time you are asked to support your position.

I have no idea what you are referring to. I support all my positions.

True.

But you shouldn't expect anyone to believe you. And if you can't back it up with actual logic, then you shouldn't be surprised.

I don’t expect anyone to believe me. I do back up what I say with logic (see below).

That is a very unconvincing argument.

What is unconvincing about it?

If something is the truth, as in actual truth in reality, then this does not happen.

Actual truth in reality changes over time. Even scientific truths change over time when new things are discovered so why wouldn’t religious truths also change? Spiritual truth is the same in all the religions so it never changes but the message of the Messenger and the social teachings and laws change every time a new religion is revealed because people and the world people live in changes over time.

This makes logical sense as there would be no reason for God to send a new Messenger unless He came with a new message. Do you think it makes more sense what Christians believe, that God only sends one man, Jesus, with a message that applies for all time and eternity? That makes no sense to me because that would mean that all the other religions are wrong, and that can’t be true because it is utterly illogical. If God is a loving and just God, how could He only care about Christians who are only about one third of the world population?

Yes, you've said that many times. Perhaps you've forgotten that each time I tell you that is not actually verification.

If that is what you believe that is what you believe. Verification is just a word and maybe it is the wrong word to convey what I am trying to convey. It is difficult to put into words.

If you can't demonstrate it to anyone else, why do you think anyone would ever accept it as correct?

I cannot prove what I believe is true to anyone else, not unless they were really receptive and wanted to understand, and believed what I was telling them. How many people do you believe fit that description? Most people only believe anything is true because they found it out for themselves.

The bigger question is why atheists think it is a believer’s job to prove to them that their belief is true. Unless we are trying to convince them it is true it is not our job.

 

[Trailblazer]

So all each of us have is opinion.

Opinion and belief.

As I've told you so many times I've lost count, THAT'S NOT PROOF.

Maybe proof is the wrong word, but it is just a word. When you know something is true, you know, because you were convinced by the evidence.

You don't think you need any, you mean, and that's only because you've convinced yourself that your belief is right.

I did not have to convince myself, I was convinced by the evidence, and in fact all the atheists I have posted to here have told me that is what would be necessary for them to believe in God. - convinced by the evidence.

But it would still meet the standards you set for religion.

No, it would not meet my standards because I have very high standards for a religion.

And you just said that spiritual reality is objectively true. Since I (as you said) only care about what is objectively true, I'm simply asking you to provide more than just your assurance that this spiritual reality you speak of is objectively true.

Honestly, I don't get why you are surprised by this.

Spiritual reality exists so in that sense it is objective truth.

If something is objective, it has correspondence with reality. Objective truth is something that is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. At one time this was simply called “truth.”
What is objective truth? | GotQuestions.org

I don’t expect you to believe that based upon my assurance. I would never believe something just because someone told me so. I would want to look at the evidence for myself but if I tell you what the evidence is and you say “that’s not evidence” then there is no more I can do.

If you really want to know if a spiritual reality exists you are going to have to work on determining that. I can tell you what the evidence is and answer questions but I cannot convince you unless you are open to what I say.

 

[Trailblazer]

Once again you completely miss the point I am making.

If a person says, "I can not prove that X is true," then that person has no justification for the claim, "X is objectively true."

That is why I do not "claim" it is true, I only say “I believe” it is true. I can believe it is true and I do not need to justify my belief to anyone.

I said a RATIONAL person, as in a hypothetical person who always behaves in the most rational manner.

How many people so you think are like that? But even then it would never work because there are too many intervening factors, too many variables that would prevent it from working the way you think it would.

I'm not interested in your proselytizing

Far from that, I was just desperately trying to drive my point home and I had no other option.

My main points were as follows:

A true seeker has NEVER already concluded that some religious belief is true. If they had concluded that before seeking it, they would not be a true seeker because there would be nothing to seek if they believed they already had the truth.

A true seeker would NEVER reach their conclusion and then seek evidence to support that conclusion. They would FIRST look for evidence and then draw their conclusions from that evidence.

How could a person be a true seeker if they had already found what they were seeking?

In seeking God, one must put aside all acquired knowledge and all attachments to what one wants; one must put aside both love and hate; one must wash away both pride and vain-glory; and one must cling to patience.