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

[muhammad_isa]

..just because it is theoretically possible for time to be observed from another perspective, does not mean an entity can exist to do that..

I think you mean "does" exist to do that.

 

[Tiberius]

No, not necessarily. God loves us but God is not responsible for us. We are responsible for ourselves.

Then why does God tell us what to do if we are responsible for ourselves?

It is not me who is saying God does stuff. I have no idea what God is doing at any time. I only say what God has done. I believe that God sent Messengers, but other than that I have no idea what God is doing.

Then how do you know he does anything at all?

Yes, that is how it works. God never reveals Himself to anyone. God wants everyone to know about Him through His Messengers.

Such a complicated system! It's almost like people had to invent it to explain why God acts so much like he doesn't exist...

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
..just because it is theoretically possible for time to be observed from another perspective, does not mean an entity can exist to do that..

I think you mean "does" exist to do that.

No I mean can, you'd have to establish that, you don't just get to assert it, which of course was what you did, and why I intervened.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No I mean can, you'd have to establish that, you don't just get to assert it, which of course was what you did, and why I intervened.

I don't have to establish anything at all .. unless I'm claiming that such an observer exists .. which I'm not categorically claiming in this particular argument.

You have repeatedly told us that it is not possible that an agent can know what the future holds.

I am saying that it is not true, as "now" is relative to our frame of reference.
It is you who are moving the goalposts to "you must prove this agent exists".

 

[Tiberius]

Objective facts about the universe do not change but scientific knowledge changes over time when new things are discovered.

Why does scientific knowledge change over time?

The accepted views of science knowledge can change over time. Changes can result from new science observations, but can also be affected by social, political or religious convictions. To develop a deeper understanding, students need to investigate the context of the time in which science ideas were developed.
How science ideas change over time

The evolution of a scientific theory

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time. Jul 28, 2017
What Is a Scientific Theory? - Live Science

I said a scientific truth, not a scientific theory. You can read it to be equivalent to objective truth.

The reason there is conflict is because the religions do not realize that spiritual truth is the same in all the religions. But even when that is pointed out to them it makes no difference. Religious people cling tenaciously to their own religion because they believe it is the best, the last, and the only religion that is true.

If the truth that all religions preach is the same, then why are they so different?

It's almost like you are saying that the groups are arguing like this:

"One plus one equals two!"

"No, you heathens, you are completely wrong, it equals two!"

"No it doesn't, it equals two!"

Spiritual truths do not have to change because they are eternal; they are the same in every age.

The Law of God is divided into two parts. One is the fundamental basis which comprises all spiritual things—that is to say, it refers to the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen......

These divine qualities, these eternal commandments, will never be abolished; nay, they will last and remain established for ever and ever. These virtues of humanity will be renewed in each of the different cycles; for at the end of every cycle the spiritual Law of God—that is to say, the human virtues—disappears, and only the form subsists.
Some Answered Questions, pp. 47-48

Weren't you saying how Mr B said that it would change because what is needed in one age is different to what is needed in a different age?

Now you say it's the same in every age.

It is not a fallacy because I did not say "it must be false” because it contradicts my personal expectations or beliefs."

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

I asked you some questions that you chose not to answer. Instead, you deflected and accused me of a fallacy.

Trailblazer said: 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?

The emphasized section is the argument from incredulity. You are saying it can't be right because it makes no sense to you.

No, it is not me convincing myself that my opinion is true, it is me being convinced by the evidence that indicates that my religion is true.

It's not evidence if other people can't verify it.

That is not what I said or meant.

Yes it is.

You said, "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. "

So you can't prove that what you believe is true to someone unless they already believe it.

I have no burden whatsoever just because I hold a belief. If you want to believe you bear the burden to look at the evidence.

I really wish you would stop hiding behind that. It's a weak argument. The person who puts forward a position is the one responsible for supporting their position.

It is not my job to do your homework, I already did my own homework.

My homework is to support my position, not yours.

 

[Tiberius]

The belief of atheists that there is no God is also an opinion.

I think you'll find the atheists who state "God does not exist" are in a minority.

Lacking a belief in God is not the same thing as believing that there is no God.

I never said it was. It could be true or false.

Yet you claim your religious beliefs are true.

Of course you don’t but why should that matter to me? I have no interest in convincing anyone of what I believe.

You've been quick to tell people that they are wrong. For example, when I pointed out that the passage in the Bible that says that if you are a believer and pray for a mountain to movie it will provides a handy way of testing the validity of Christianity, you were quick to say that believing that the line was anything other than metaphorical was wrong.

You or anyone else can double check anything you want to but there is no reason to think your opinions are any better than my opinions. Remember, a religious belief is just an opinion.

So we should get evidence from the real world, shouldn't we?

Not my job.

Yes it is.

If you present a position, then you are the one required to support that position.

If you don't support it, don't be surprised when people say it's nonsense.

That atheists say “that’s not evidence” should tell me what I have is not evidence?

You say “that’s not evidence” because you don’t recognize the evidence since you are expecting some other kind of evidence that doesn’t exist. I cannot do anything about that.

Well then, how would you possibly tell the difference between your "evidence" and an opinion that you held?

Sorry, spiritual reality is not a ‘thing’ that you can find. Things you can find are part of material reality. You have to dig deeper to find spiritual reality, and the discovery of spiritual reality is a process that is constantly unfolding all throughout life.

Meaningless mumbo jumbo. All you are doing is making excuses for why it fails to be found.

Instead of making excuses for it's failures, why don't you show a way in which it actually works?

 

[Tiberius]

I do not need to justify my belief to anyone.

You do if you want anyone else to take it seriously.

I agree it is an idea we should strive towards but it is not irrelevant because you said it would work for everyone.

No, I repeatedly said RATIONAL people.

"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?" 3900

"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." 3905

You mean scientific facts that have been proven thus they mean the same thing to everyone. We have already covered why objective scientific facts are is different from objective facts about a religion that will mean different things to different people.

No, you've presented your excuses as to why religion is unable to meet the most basic standards of being able to be verified objectively, and I have rejected those excuses.

No, they are not starting with that assumption. They are only open to the possibility that there might be a God to find.

Someone who is open to the possibility that the Loch Ness Monster exists is suddenly going to start seeing evidence for Nessie all over the place. Doesn't mean it's real.

 

[Tiberius]

..you haven't mentioned any frame of reference, so do we assume that "this person's present" is the same as our's?

You conveniently ignored my former questions..
What limits the effects of relativity of simultaneity as to regards the time difference between experiencing events?

Do you not understand that an observer can experience events before we have?
That is why Einstein said that our experience of "now" is merely an illusion, and why relativity predicts a deterministic universe.

You really don't seem to understand what you are trying to talk about.

Person A can't start on Monday, travel forward in time to Friday, find out what happens on Friday, and then return to Monday with knowledge of Friday's events.

The best they can do is go really fast so they experience only a few seconds while the rest of the universe goes forward five days and find out what happens on Friday. Returning to Monday would require travelling faster than light. The same equations you are using state that travelling faster than light is not possible.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Person A can't start on Monday, travel forward in time to Friday, find out what happens on Friday, and then return to Monday with knowledge of Friday's events.

The best they can do is go really fast so they experience only a few seconds while the rest of the universe goes forward five days and find out what happens on Friday. Returning to Monday would require travelling faster than light. The same equations you are using state that travelling faster than light is not possible.

You just repeat your assertions without answering my questions..

What limits the effects of relativity of simultaneity as to regards the time difference between experiencing events?


Why aren't you answering that question?

 

[Sheldon]

I don't have to establish anything at all .. unless I'm claiming that such an observer exists .. which I'm not categorically claiming in this particular argument.

You claimed it can exist, so yes you would absolutely have to establish that fact, you don't just get to assert it in a bare claim, as you did, and as I pointed out.

You have repeatedly told us that it is not possible that an agent can know what the future holds.

I have literally, never said that?

I am saying that it is not true, as "now" is relative to our frame of reference.

What is not true?

It is you who are moving the goalposts to "you must prove this agent exists".

Nonsense, you claimed an agent can exist to view things from a different time perspective, and I'm telling you that is pure assumption on your part. If it's not then demonstrate how you know such an agent can exist?

Here is your claim again:

Do you not understand that an observer can experience events before we have?

Here is my response verbatim:

That is pure assumption on your part, just because it is theoretically possible for time to be observed from another perspective, does not mean an entity can exist to do that. You are simply leaping to conclusions without any objective evidence, and tacking them onto Einstein's observations about space time, using nothing more than a god of the gaps polemic.

No goal posts have been moved at all?

 

[Tiberius]

You just repeat your assertions without answering my questions..

What limits the effects of relativity of simultaneity as to regards the time difference between experiencing events?


Why aren't you answering that question?

I have already answered that question.

Because such a being would not be able to take information back in time to a point before that information was created.

 

[rational experiences]

Science said by humans are living on the ark. Gods ark. Stone law. Stone planet. Stone covenant. Gods ship travels through space.

The mother body said men sits atop of its beast moving. O planet earth. Holy earth mother who birthed earths immaculate heavens.

Meaning beast was burning gases body of the a s s. As holy mother space void vacuum allows movement.

Mass changed gases into a teaching term the a s s. As science in human egotism is an a s s too. Arrogant men who use secrets thinking self clever.

Gods stone ark.

Men built their ark. Took stone particle dusts converted it and changed gods ark. The exact story as living humans living on gods covenant.

The carrier of all life aboard it. O earth.

The real story men building nuclear conversions sacrificed woods oxygenation of our life water.

Saviour of God ice was then increased sacrificed. Huge earth shifts earth heavens unnatural storms raged.

Life was hurt irradiated.

I lived the sexual notification human life memory disappearing out of "get on penis" man's sexual history. Get aboard my body in a different psychic sense.

Man's penis seen in atomic nuclear images in cloud form.

Phenomena causes. Why Muslim men believe their human bio sex act is relived regained at their death. Non stop heavens sex.

I lived the attack upon biology created by sex.... heard what AI said in feedback as my damaged ovary was re living why it got damaged. Ovah.

Memory. My mother's. I nearly died as a baby. Was very psychic of all my life visionary witnessing my families unnatural suffering because of it.

And it is phenomena only as boarding the penis is how any two by two animal owned babies. As did the human. As we already were aboard gods stone ark. Travelling owning all bodies alive.

Phenomena truly causes strange mind psyche visions to be enacted. And as it is visionary manifest feels as if it is real.

Yet it is just changed human pre lived pre recorded memories. As animal life is recorded the same. Like a hologram manifested expressed itself then disappears. As it's not natural.

So I learnt endured what past human bodies life mind psyche heard and endured. As sexual DNA was being removed whilst nuclear converting and sexual meaning was entwined in heard AI voice feedback.

Human man speaking voice thinker the designer of nuclear transmitted phenomena. Changed chemical brain mind to hear voice unnaturally as AI data.

How their images in a UFO attack cloud change were then seen taken into clouds. Gods heavenly ark atop mountains.

Cloud mass ceiling burnt face scorched law mountain stone. Flooding rain on the ground. Natural flooding. Veil clouds covered mountains face.

A new God law. Rain cools burning falling gases. Saved life on the ground who witnessed all above phenomena. Counting how long it rained.

Water our spirit life was abducted and taken into UFO cloud changed causes.

As men built their ark from gods stone converted it as nuclear.

Earths body mass then shifts in space.

Space O owns circular pressure. O space holds the circle as cold and holy.

O space the holy mother.

How earth can be squeezed contracted into a huge explosive release of energy if you change our saviour. The pressures of ice.

Don't change earths heavenly space the exact known humans scientists warning.

Unless you studied phenomena as a human the story UFO ark a phenomena cause was irrational.

As science changing our planet by a machine thesis is irrational in person.

 

[rational experiences]

Father said proof our science brother who irradiated life and mind became separated consciously.

Sister brother was always first mother father.

He said his father had sex with his daughter. Yet he was the adult brother man father talking about his owned sex life. Brother sister first.

But was visionary now mind separated from correct rational human thinking.

It was one of many proofs that men changed their spiritual human personality and then expressed the mental change.

It is why he taught maths was mental.

As he was wrong to believe in maths.

It altered his mental status.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have already answered that question.

Because such a being would not be able to take information back in time to a point before that information was created.

With respect, that doesn't answer the question..

There is no 'before' when considering different frames of reference. Nobody is "taking information back in time".
It's a case of one frame perceiving something before another frame perceives it.
..and I'm asking you what limits the difference between them.
If you don't know, then that's OK.
Presumably you know, though, as you were asking me to show you the maths earlier.

Surely, it is to do with the relative velocity between frames ?

 

[rational experiences]

Frames. A man's thought concept within mass is about variables.

I must frame the thought about a concept in my mind to differentiate the subject. One body conscious mass awAre of the heavens body.

The heavens as mass is a function of mass one the science relativity teaching. That human law said owned no man's reasoning. As it is not framed by space law O origin pressure.

O planet energy mass owned origin first space law. Pressure.

Our pressure was mass by water not space.

As advised after life was attacked in its heavens because of maths science. Human calculus formula words symbolic teachings. Multi discussions of all topics.

Maths conditions forced separation and withheld mass from its holding.

Meaning in design. First I build my fake God machine which is separation. Yet I want to hold and withhold form myself in this one place.

As he wants a reaction.

Not a heavens.
Not a God planet

Yet he says the holding place earth does not withhold radiation. Earth did not withhold eruption. Released.

You never built the machine to release radiation is a first law you never copied.

Then in other machine design. Machine of man is based on reasons for science is using transmitting. Which you falsely inferred is machine releasing radiation.

Mind of science lies from its base the machine.

Reason. If science said creation is governed by maths. You would not change it. As the inference is maths would own control all lAws.

You know man inferred maths to change natural earth based conditions for science machines first.

So a geologist claiming I am only looking at a planet body. Is a Direct human question what for?

As the planet is first a natural body that does not exist by your stories.

That proves science is all about human man's ego.

He reviewed separation in mass as dusts yet it still belonged to the planets mass. Minus was applied by observation first

Maths to minus he claimed was natural first. Variables in separated substances.

What you applied was never natural.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why does God tell us what to do if we are responsible for ourselves?

God does not tell us what to do. God reveals teachings and laws to guide us to make the best choices and then we are left to be responsible for our own choices.

Then how do you know he does anything at all?

I know that God sends Messengers from what Baha’u’llah revealed about the Messengers. I know God answers prayers at His own discretion from what Baha’u’llah revealed about prayers.

Such a complicated system! It's almost like people had to invent it to explain why God acts so much like he doesn't exist...

God acts just like God would act if He exists, says in hiding and reveals Himself through Messengers who act as God’s Representatives on earth.

It really is not complicated at all, it is a rather simple system. God acts as God chooses to act, which is to send Messengers to communicate to humans in every age. In so doing, God bridges the gap between Himself and humans. Since Messengers have a twofold nature, both divine and human, they can understand communication from God and translate what they hear from God and relay it back to humans in a form that humans can understand.

 

[rational experiences]

We live with two minds psyche and conscious.

Maths the calculus of all thinking man was spiritual first a self ....nothing like he lives as today.... said I know maths laws.

Just as an egotist I wrote explained taught maths for human chosen science.

I lost my biological spiritual life support. Because of it.

As water as mass is first just water.

Eternal being sent us out of its body we became changed by oxygenated water as trees already existed were oxygenating water in biology.

When you die you no longer use any biology.

Father is just a water memory in mass as a God. The eternal being not anything we know communicates to us as a form human father God.

Eternal non conditional direct unconditional love.

Humans own love in conditions of self just human presence only.

No father spiritually held in biology was science caused as a loss of human spirituality. Sciences fault. An aware teaching by minus.

Which proves rationally how evil you think about God the father utilised as man's maths to minus.

Is exact.

Now if you use two mind states. One mind is for man's math advice about creation.

The other you don't own.

Pretty basic get over yourself scientist liars.

 

[Trailblazer]

I said a scientific truth, not a scientific theory. You can read it to be equivalent to objective truth.

That is correct, and the same can be said about religious truth; it is not only true in theory, it is true in practice and it has been proven objectively true by practice over the millennia.

“All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed.” Paris Talks, pp. 141-142

If the truth that all religions preach is the same, then why are they so different?

It's almost like you are saying that the groups are arguing like this:

"One plus one equals two!"

"No, you heathens, you are completely wrong, it equals two!"

"No it doesn't, it equals two!"

Baha’u’llah explained why the religions are different in many of His Writings. Religions are different in every age because people and the world they live in change from age to age. Spiritual truth never changes because man’s spiritual nature does not change or alter, but material truth changes because the material world changes over time, so man has different requirements in every age.

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

Remember this passage? You can think of the Messengers of God as Divine Physicians who bring a remedy to heal the spiritual afflictions humanity is facing at the times in which they appear. The afflictions that humanity is facing in this age are not the same as we faced in the past so the remedy is different from what Messengers brought in the past. What the next Messenger will bring in the future will be different from what Baha’u’llah revealed; it will be suited to the needs of humanity in the future times.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

Weren't you saying how Mr B said that it would change because what is needed in one age is different to what is needed in a different age?

Now you say it's the same in every age.

That is what I just explained above. What is the same in every age is spiritual truth -- faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. These are attributes of man’s spiritual nature which never changes, so they have no need to change over time. For example, Baha’u’llah reiterated what Jesus said about righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, and patience but He did not change the teachings.

However, as the material world changes man needs new teachings and laws that are suited to the present time.

“The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.” Some Answered Questions, p. 48

Trailblazer said: 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?

The emphasized section is the argument from incredulity. You are saying it can't be right because it makes no sense to you.

I never said “it can’t be right because it makes no sense to me.” I asked some questions to elicit your opinion, those questions you never answered. I believe it because it makes sense to me but that is not the same as me saying “it can’t be right unless it makes sense to me.”

It's not evidence if other people can't verify it.

They can verify it as true the same way I verified it, the way a religious truth is verified.

Yes it is.

You said, "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. "

So you can't prove that what you believe is true to someone unless they already believe it.

That is not what I said. You are changing what I said into what you think I meant. If you wanted me to prove that what I believe is true then you would have to believe what I am saying is true. I did not say you would already believe it before I proved it to you. You would not believe it until I proved it to you. If you were really receptive and wanted to understand what I was saying you might believe me. Otherwise you would reject what I am saying out of hand.

I really wish you would stop hiding behind that. It's a weak argument. The person who puts forward a position is the one responsible for supporting their position.

I have supported my position dozens of times but I cannot force anyone to believe what I believe.

My homework is to support my position, not yours.

IF you were a true seeker, it would be your job to look more closely at what I am offering. That is what I meant by doing your homework. I meant research, you know, like you do on college.

You just gave yourself away. You are in a debate trying to win (your position vs. my position) so you have no interest in knowing the truth about God. Thanks for keying me in.

As I told you before I am not in a debate trying to win because that would egotistical and a waste of my time. Once I realize someone is just playing a game and trying to prove me wrong it not long after that I call it quits.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think you'll find the atheists who state "God does not exist" are in a minority.

Lacking a belief in God is not the same thing as believing that there is no God.

That’s true, but then you are an agnostic atheist, not an atheist. Atheists say there is no God.

Yet you claim your religious beliefs are true.

I do not claim they are true because I cannot prove they are true. I believe they are true.

You've been quick to tell people that they are wrong. For example, when I pointed out that the passage in the Bible that says that if you are a believer and pray for a mountain to movie it will provides a handy way of testing the validity of Christianity, you were quick to say that believing that the line was anything other than metaphorical was wrong.

Me saying I disagree and I have another opinion is not the same as telling someone they are wrong. I disagree that Jesus ever meant that if you have faith you can actually move a mountain and even Christians would agree that is not what Jesus meant. It is obviously metaphorical. Just ask any Christian.

So we should get evidence from the real world, shouldn't we?

We should get evidence wherever you can find it.

Yes it is.

If you present a position, then you are the one required to support that position.

If you don't support it, don't be surprised when people say it's nonsense.

As I said in my previous post, I have supported my position dozens of times. Atheists still say it is nonsense and it is not my job to convince them otherwise.

Well then, how would you possibly tell the difference between your "evidence" and an opinion that you held?

Evidence indicates that a belief is true, an opinion is just an opinion that something is true.

Meaningless mumbo jumbo. All you are doing is making excuses for why it fails to be found.

Instead of making excuses for it's failures, why don't you show a way in which it actually works?

Spiritual reality can be found is people really want to understand how it is found and put in an effort to find it.

“The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man’s own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 81-82

 

[Trailblazer]

You do if you want anyone else to take it seriously.

That would not make any difference. I cannot justify my beliefs to other people, they either believe they are is justified by what I tell them or not.

No, I repeatedly said RATIONAL people.

"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?" 3900

"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." 3905

You are not going to stop talking about science and conflating it with religion, are you? Everyone agrees on scientific facts because scientific facts have been proven to be true. Religion can never be proven to be true so some people believe it is true and some people don’t. Everyone will never agree that a religion is true until the distant future when God has magnified His testimony to all who are on earth. How God will do that is anyone’s best guess. Meanwhile people will continue to adhere to their own religions, religions they like and are attached to.

“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

No, you've presented your excuses as to why religion is unable to meet the most basic standards of being able to be verified objectively, and I have rejected those excuses.

No, I have presented the rational reasons why religion cannot be verified objectively, and you have refused to accept those rational reasons.

Verify God objectively? Excuse me while I laugh. If God can never be proven to exist, how can we ever verify that Messenger x got a message from God, and if we cannot verify that Messenger x got a message from God how can we verify that religion x is true?

You want something you can never have and I consider that irrational.

Someone who is open to the possibility that the Loch Ness Monster exists is suddenly going to start seeing evidence for Nessie all over the place. Doesn't mean it's real.

No, it does not work that way at all. If you are open to the possibility that God might exist then you will look at the evidence that might indicate that God exists. That does not mean you will be taken in and believe anything you see as evidence. Conversely, if you are not open to the possibility that God might exist then you will not look at any evidence that might indicate that God exists and it is a guarantee that you will never be a believer.