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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is not a material thing that exists in this world so there can be no observation or measurement.

So God has no impact on the universe (other than whispering messages to "Messengers")?

That is absolutely false since there can never be empirical evidence of a Spirit Being.

Then your "Spirit Being" is indistinguishable from a non-existent thing in every measurable way.

However, there is other kinds of evidence (see below).
To expect a kind of evidence that can never be procured is unreasonable.

It certainly is evidence, if the person represents God.

Empirical evidence is not the ONLY kind of evidence.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them

Which type of evidence are you suggesting we should use here?

 

[CG Didymus]

Well, we see the results of Jesus and Muhammad in the civilisations that have sprung from their existence.
They are significant to this day.

And who was the "Jesus" that most of those Christians that built their civilizations upon? A Jesus they believed to be God. And it was forced on a lot of people. But now, is it still, or was it ever Christianity, that made those civilizations great? Democracy, capitalism, military strength and also the freedom to believe the religion that you want.

So sure, the imposed belief in a religion helps unite people. But it also unites people in opposition to people that have different religious beliefs. So, like the Baha'is say, but I don't necessarily see them doing it, all religions must put aside their differences for civilization to move forward.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It certainly is evidence, if the person represents God.

No - not even then.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer, how about the false messengers of God? What are they evidence of? That the claim is easy to make?

The claim is easy to make but hard to prove. False messengers have nothing to back up their claims.

But then you have the problem of having what Baha'is believe is a true messenger, Jesus, but the religion that developed from his teachings, Baha'is believe are false, the trinitarian Christians. Which includes the Catholic Church and a lot of Protestant Churches. So, what is that evidence of?

That is evidence that men change and corrupt religions over time.

So, we have the NT that Baha'is don't take as having the exact words of Jesus, and then believing that some of the stories in it are not literally true. Then his followers interpreted things in the NT to come to the conclusion that Jesus must be God... along with The Father and Holy Spirit. Sounds like evidence for people adding to and making up stories about the "messenger" of God. Can we trust what they wrote as evidence?

The NT is evidence in the sense that it is the testimony of God through men even though obviously it is not the exact words of God. It is your job to determine what you believe is true and what is false or metaphorical. That is easy to do if one reads the Baha'i Writings.

Maybe you can claim it for Baha'u'llah, but still, other than Baha'is, his person, his mission and his writings weren't things that an Atheist would accept as evidence.

Obviously Atheists won't accept Baha'u'llah as evidence because they don't even accept Jesus, who is the clearest evidence of the existence of God.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Since atheists have no belief in a God or Gods, they are not looking for the same evidence as believers do
They in a way already "know" they can't find God since to them God does not exist.

To a believer, they already believe God exist, so looking for God isnt needed ergo the proof of God will not exist for one who clearly do not believe

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since atheists have no belief in a God or Gods, they are not looking for the same evidence as believers do
They in a way already "know" they can't find God since to them God does not exist.

To a believer, they already believe God exist, so looking for God isnt needed ergo the proof of God will not exist for one who clearly do not believe

I'm reminded of a quote from Philip K. Dick:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

 

[CG Didymus]

The main requirement for finding truth is sincerity.
We are all on a spiritual journey.

Yes, and some find some sect of Islam or Christianity, or Hinduism or Buddhism or Baha'i. But... what is wrong with someone who is sincere and finds that God or Gods that are invisible and can't be proven might not really exist? Your beliefs about God are not the same as a Christian's or a Baha'is or a Jew. So, who is right? And what if all those concepts of God are wrong? Then what were we arguing over? Ideas we got out of our religions. Words on a page. Yours make sense to you, and theirs make sense to them.

And to the Atheist, none of them make sense. They might be wrong, but I think it's an important way to look at things. It is forcing people to take a close look at the religions and what they believe to be true. Is it real? Is it provable? If not, why do you believe it so strongly?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm reminded of a quote from Philip K. Dick:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

That is some food for thoughts

 

[Trailblazer]

So God has no impact on the universe (other than whispering messages to "Messengers")?

I never said that. I only ever said that the Messengers are the evidence that God provides so we will know that He exists. I believe that God rules and maintains the universe.

“Baha’is believe in an almighty creator who has fashioned the universe and has made man in his own image; they believe in a non-created cause of all existence, in a single God. The word ‘God’ is a symbol for that transcendent reality by which all existence is ruled and maintained. What we call God is not, as the critics of the concept of God believe, a product of human imagination, a creation of the mind, a fanciful invention which has no reality, or a reflection of particular social and economic circumstances.”
(Udo Schafer, the light that shineth in the darkness, p. 19)

Then your "Spirit Being" is indistinguishable from a non-existent thing in every measurable way.

Yes, God is indistinguishable in any measurable way.

Which type of evidence are you suggesting we should use here?

#s 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 15.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them

 

[Trailblazer]

No - not even then.

Why not?

 

[CG Didymus]

The stories are not the evidence, the Messengers that appear in the Bible are the evidence that God exists, even though not al the stories about those Messengers are literally true.

Okay, Adam? Baha'is believe something about him, but not what is written in the Bible... Same with Noah and Abraham. Baha'is have a different story about them. Maybe even with Moses, but for sure, even with him, Baha'is aren't going to believe all those stories really happened. So, I call it legend and myth. And even those characters could very well be legend of myth. Just because the Bible mentions these people doesn't necessarily mean they were real. And it doesn't help that the Baha'is say the stories are not true. So, how are they evidence? Maybe by what Baha'u'llah says about them, but not by what the Bible says about them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never said that.

Yeah, you kinda did.

God doing things with physical effects would be empirical evidence for God, which you said doesn't exist.

Yes, God is indistinguishable in any measurable way.

Well, if you want other people to believe in God, that's a problem.

#s 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 15.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them[/QUOTE]
So these ones:

3. Character Evidence
This is a testimony or document that is used to help prove that someone acted in a particular way based on the person’s character. While this can’t be used to prove that a person’s behavior at a certain time was consistent with his or her character, it can be used in some workplace investigations to prove intent, motive, or opportunity.

The bit I bolded points to the problem with #3.

5. Demonstrative Evidence
An object or document is considered to be demonstrative evidence when it directly demonstrates a fact. It’s a common and reliable kind of evidence. Examples of this kind of evidence are photographs, video and audio recordings, charts, etc. In a workplace investigation, this could be an audio recording of someone’s harassing behavior or a photograph of offensive graffiti.

[...]

7. Direct Evidence
The most powerful type of evidence, direct evidence requires no inference. The evidence alone is the proof. This could be the testimony of a witness who saw first-hand an incident of sexual harassment in the workplace.

#5 and #7 are another way of describing empirical evidence, which you said you don't have.

8. Documentary Evidence
Most commonly considered to be written forms of proof, such as letters or wills, documentary evidence can also include other types of media, such as images, video or audio recordings, etc.

#8 isn't relevant to the existence of God.

11. Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence consists of statements made by witnesses who are not present. While hearsay evidence is not admissible in court, it can be relevant and valuable in a workplace investigation where the burden of proof is less robust than in court.

Again, the bit I bolded points to the problem with #11: hearsay is unreliable.

15. Testimonial Evidence
One of the most common forms of evidence, this is either spoken or written evidence given by a witness under oath. It can be gathered in court, at a deposition or through an affidavit.

#15 is just #8 presented orally instead of in writing. Still not relevant to the existence of God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why not?

Because a person who represents God is still not God.

We're looking for empirical evidence of the existence of God, not of God's fan club.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes they do.
..just because you are too blind to see them, doesn't mean that they are not there.

Just because you make a bare claim using a no true Scotsman fallacy doesn't mean they are there either. Now lets see CG Didymus pointed out an observable falsifiable fact, and you responded with an unevidenced claims and a logical fallacy.

If only we could understand what this all means?

 

[Sheldon]

How would one quote support that the whole Bible is evidence for a deity?

Why are you asking me, it was your claim not mine?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Because a person who represents God is still not God.

We're looking for empirical evidence of the existence of God, not of God's fan club.

Something like this?

 

[Sheldon]

I was not trying to make a logical argument.

Oh I sensed you are content to make irrational claims and arguments form the first, but I thought simple explanations might help you spot them at least, it seems I was wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, Adam? Baha'is believe something about him, but not what is written in the Bible... Same with Noah and Abraham. Baha'is have a different story about them. Maybe even with Moses, but for sure, even with him, Baha'is aren't going to believe all those stories really happened. So, I call it legend and myth. And even those characters could very well be legend of myth. Just because the Bible mentions these people doesn't necessarily mean they were real. And it doesn't help that the Baha'is say the stories are not true. So, how are they evidence? Maybe by what Baha'u'llah says about them, but not by what the Bible says about them.

Just because the Bible mentions these people doesn't necessarily mean they were real.but Baha'is know they were real because Baha'u'llah wrote about them.

They are evidence because of what Baha'u'llah says about them, not because of what the Bible says about them.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Just because the Bible mentions these people doesn't necessarily mean they were real.but Baha'is know they were real because Baha'u'llah wrote about them.

They are evidence because of what Baha'u'llah says about them, not because of what the Bible says about them.

Ummm...question

Since the Bible mention those people they may or may not be real, but when Baha'i'ullah mention them, they suddenly become real

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
..you said "the whole bible is evidence for a deity", yet can't offer even one quote to support this when asked..

What is your intention by this statement?

To illustrate a point, that challenges an unevidenced claim. It's called debate, do you think you can Google debate on your own, or shall I do it for you?

Is life all some kind of joke to you?

In what sense?

You haven't told me who you think the Jesus mentioned in the Bible is.

Correct, and you haven't told me who you think Dumbledore in the Harry Potter movies is?

Are you suggesting that Christianity spread due to so many gullible people in his time?

Why do you insist on reeling off straw man claims, and trying to pretend you're asking questions? Is it an objective fact that gullible people exist? Yes I'd say so, wouldn't you? Beyond that I don't care to speculate wildly.

Of course, you are so much 'smarter' than all those people.

Sigh, yet another straw man fallacy.

They couldn't construct non-answers as you do.

Do you think a vapid generic insult, that doesn't address anything in the post you're pretending to respond to, is the way to illustrate that others are giving "non answers"? I'm guessing irony is not something you're able to appreciate.