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

[Subduction Zone]

You have not refuted me one single time. You just believe you have.

I do not need your help, I have God's help.

Denial is rude after a while.

 

[Trailblazer]

But this doesn't count, because we know it never happened? In other words... religions make things up?
Genesis 3:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

Oh God, spare me. Sorry that is all I can say right now, but I think you know why I said it.
But I am glad you tracked me down here, because this party was getting really boring.

Here's the "testimony" of a couple of NT writers and they claim there were witnesses. Do you believe them?
Matthew 27:52-53 52and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
Acts 1:3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them (the apostles) and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive.

This is not testimony of any kind because as you know nobody even knows who wrote the gospels.
By contrast, we know who the men were who testified of Baha'u'llah...
Not even in the same ball park.

And there you go again. You bring up the "religions" of God. What "empirical" evidence did Hinduism leave? And who was the messenger of God that established Hinduism?

I think Baha'is would be better off in just saying that they have studied the writings of Baha'u'llah and have come to believe the things he says... And he says God is real.

I do not need to know the details in order to know that they are religions of God. Maybe you need to know the details but I don't.

 

[Trailblazer]

Denial is rude after a while.

What is rude is accusing a person of denial, it is SO RUDE.
But sadly, rude people rarely know how rude they are.

It is also arrogant to think you know someone better than they know themselves.

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others.

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

 

[F1fan]

The Messengers are evidence that God exists

This statement is insufficient. Its just a claim. You are treating it as a fact, but it isn't.

but the claim of the Messenger is NOT evidence because that would be circular reasoning.
Do you understand what I mean?

No. How are messengers of god evidence that a god exists IF the claims, or whatever the messenger says, not evidence itself? The only think that would make a messenger authentic is through what it says, and then these statements can be verified as being beyond what an ordinary mortal could know.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, that is the OP, isn’t it? You asked what atheists would consider as evidence, and I told you. You said it will happen, eventually. But again, everybody can say that, for basically everything.

ciao

- viole

What I said I believe will happen eventually is not related to evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is rude is accusing a person of denial, it is SO RUDE.
But sadly, rude people rarely know how rude they are.

It is also arrogant to think you know someone better than they know themselves.

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others.

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

I never made such an assumption. It is arrogant to keep denying the obvious.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where did I say it matters? I said people believing in a God different from yours would not be convinced either.

ciao

- viole

And so.....

 

[Trailblazer]

I never made such an assumption. It is arrogant to keep denying the obvious.

You absolutely did tell me I am in denial. You cannot deny what is posted in the posts.

What is the obvious that I am denying?

 

[CG Didymus]

The way we can identify someone as a Messenger of God is by looking at all the evidence that supports their claim.

Okay, that's something we can test and see if the Baha'i Faith is accurate in what it says. Baha'is say that Krishna is a messenger of God. What is the evidence that supports that?

And who was the messenger of God that established Hinduism?

Probable failures... One failure... Krishna did not establish Hinduism. Failure number two... Krishna claims to be an incarnation of a Hindu God. Failure number three... Krishna taught reincarnation.

So Baha'is have to show that Krishna only claimed to be only a messenger, what Baha'is call a "manifestation" of God? But then a manifestation is supposed to bring a new book and a new religion. So can the Baha'is show that Krishna did that? He is part of Hinduism. He didn't "found" Hinduism. So what new religion do Baha'is think he started? And what book? Do Baha'is believe that the Bhagavad Gita is "The Word of God"? But it's only part of the Mahabharata. So is that considered to be Scripture by Baha'is? Baha'is don't believe that a person returns into a new and different body after dying. Can Baha'is show that Krishna didn't actually teach that people do return several times into new bodies?

We don't have that baloney.

Yes, who needs that "baloney"? All we have is another religion that thinks it has all the answers.

 

[Trailblazer]

This statement is insufficient. Its just a claim. You are treating it as a fact, but it isn't.

It is not a claim or a fact, it is a belief. Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims.

One of Baha'u'llah's claims is that God can never be known except through His Messenger (who is a Manifestation of God).

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

No. How are messengers of god evidence that a god exists IF the claims, or whatever the messenger says, not evidence itself? The only think that would make a messenger authentic is through what it says, and then these statements can be verified as being beyond what an ordinary mortal could know.

The claim itself is not the evidence because anyone can make a claim to be a Messenger of God.
The evidence is everything that can be used to backs up the claim.

What is contained in the Writings of Baha'u'lah, including the claims, is beyond what any ordinary mortal could know, but that is a matter or personal opinion, I don't know how it could ever be verified.

 

[F1fan]

Sorry, I cannot remember that because I have been on this computer for 10 hours.

See, just as I noted in an earlier post, you ignore those who point out your errors. If your beliefs were actually well founded on evidence you would have no problem acknowledging your flaws and correct them. But you don't. You ignore them and continue on with your errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You absolutely did tell me I am in denial. You cannot deny what is posted in the posts.

What is the obvious that I am denying?

That all of your attempts to argue rationally have been refuted.

You have made corrections personal and are now lashing out.

I can understand that your religious beliefs are important to you, but it is a mistake to try to defend them by claiming that they are rational. They simply are not. And that is what people have tried to show you. The fact that they are not rational does not automatically make them wrong. That no one has claimed. Only your attempts to claim that it is a rational belief has been corrected.

 

[F1fan]

It is not a claim or a fact, it is a belief.

Once again, when you state your beliefs in a debate forum as a truth you are making a claim. That means you have to prove it.

Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims.

That means nothing to anyone else.

One of Baha'u'llah's claims is that God can never be known except through His Messenger (who is a Manifestation of God).

That means nothing to us.

The claim itself is not the evidence because anyone can make a claim to be a Messenger of God.

That means you need a way to verify that any messenger you think is authentic, and that is conclusive evidence. That is a very high standard of evidence, meaning facts. You have none.

The evidence is everything that can be used to backs up the claim.

And highly skilled thinkers will do this work. We can't trust biased believers like yourself, agreed?

What is contained in the Writings of Baha'u'lah, including the claims, is beyond what any ordinary mortal could know, but that is a matter or personal opinion, I don't know how it could ever be verified.

If it can't be verified then it is no good. All you have is your biased belief. We don't care about your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Trailblazer , it is an error to think that any of the Abrahamic religions can be defended rationally. I include Bahai' in this group. There simply is no reliable evidence for any of them. You should be looking to Bahai's strengths. It does appear to have superior morals compared to other Abrahamic religions.

The fact that it cannot be defended rationally does not make it wrong. And its moral superiority does support that it is at least not as wrong as other religions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, that's something we can test and see if the Baha'i Faith is accurate in what it says. Baha'is say that Krishna is a messenger of God. What is the evidence that supports that?

That is not how you test the Baha'i Faith, by looking at what Baha'is said about Krishna. Baha'u'llah never said anything about Krishna so what Bahais say is moot, unless Abdu'l-Baha said something.

Probable failures... One failure... Krishna did not establish Hinduism. Failure number two... Krishna claims to be an incarnation of a Hindu God. Failure number three... Krishna taught reincarnation.

Failure number 4 -- Nobody knows anything about what Krishna taught because we have no original scriptures written by Krishna. Moreover what was written was written thousand of years after Krishna walked the earth. Compare this to the gospels that were written only a few decades after Jesus walked the earth.

Born in northern India (around 3,228 BCE), Lord Krishna's life marks the passing of the Dvapara age and beginning of the Kal yuga (which is also considered as the current age). References to Lord Krishna can be found in several Hindu mythological books, especially in the epic Hindu book, the Mahabharata.Aug 14, 2017
Film: Kurukshetra (2019 film)

The story of Lord Krishna's birth - Times of India

When was the Bhagavad Gita written and by whom?

Authorship & Origin. The Bhagavad Gita was written down at some point between 400 BCE and 200 CE. Like the Vedas and the Upanishads, the authorship of the Bhagavad Gita is unclear.

The Bhagavad Gita | Philosophy in the Humanities

Yes, who needs that "baloney"? All we have is another religion that thinks it has all the answers.

You are right about that, Nobody needs to know about Krishna when we have a new Manifestation of God for THIS age.
So why do you keep mixing up religions that don't go together?

 

[Trailblazer]

See, just as I noted in an earlier post, you ignore those who point out your errors. If your beliefs were actually well founded on evidence you would have no problem acknowledging your flaws and correct them. But you don't. You ignore them and continue on with your errors.

I did ignore anything, I said I did not remember and that was the truth.

I do not ignore anything that is posted to me.

I am not going to point out any flaws because I do not see any flaws so there is nothing to correct.

 

[Trailblazer]

That all of your attempts to argue rationally have been refuted.

Only in your imagination.

 

[oldbadger]

Evidence for god cannot rely on the assumption that god exists. The existence of things can only be considered evidence of god if you first assume that they couldn't exist unless god created them, which assumes god exists.

No, ratiocinator....... I did not assume my conclusion, but you did assume the question by stuffing factors within it that you can't guess at.

You wrote ...'.... assume that they couldn't exist unless god created them'.
ratiuonator, I don't claim that God DID create anything...... I claim that God IS everything.
How did God get here?...... I don't know, its far to vast for me to guess.

I perceive a massively high probability that our universe is tiny is comparison with everything, so I can't guess at how it arrived, but perceiving everything, anything and all else to be part of the WHOLE is LOGICAL! Here is the logic: Everything = All

I simply view ALL as a Deity and Nature is its guv'nor here. If you can't accept that Nature rules here then trust me when I tell you that's it's only a matter of time before you do.

You've assumed your conclusion, which is called "begging the question" and it's a logical fallacy.

So you see, I didn't beg anything, I've just told you my answer.

 

[Trailblazer]

I can understand that your religious beliefs are important to you, but it is a mistake to try to defend them by claiming that they are rational. They simply are not. And that is what people have tried to show you. The fact that they are not rational does not automatically make them wrong. That no one has claimed. Only your attempts to claim that it is a rational belief has been corrected.

Again, who do you think you are to label beliefs irrational? And you cannot even explain WHY they are irrational.

Baha'i beliefs are as rational as the day is long. You cannot change that with your personal opinion.

People have tried to show me, as if they have anything to show me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Once again, when you state your beliefs in a debate forum as a truth you are making a claim. That means you have to prove it.

Sorry but no. I don’t have to prove it just because I believe something is true.

That means nothing to anyone else.

Why should I care?

That means nothing to us.

Why should I care?

That means you need a way to verify that any messenger you think is authentic, and that is conclusive evidence. That is a very high standard of evidence, meaning facts. You have none.

I have facts.

And highly skilled thinkers will do this work. We can't trust biased believers like yourself, agreed?

You do not know if I am biased. Highly skilled thinkers like you?

If it can't be verified then it is no good. All you have is your biased belief. We don't care about your beliefs.

If you do not care about my beliefs why do you keep asking me about them? Please leave me alone.