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

[F1fan]

The evidence for something that can be proven, like the election results were proven, cannot be compared with evidence for a Messenger of God. That is the fallacy of false equivalence.

Then we can't accept the claim that a messenger is evidence for a god existing. All the messengers might be frauds. A fraud isn't evidence that a God exists.

This has nothing to do with honesty, it has to do with making an effort to look at the evidence. People cannot recognize the evidence unless they look at the evidence. If they continually say "that's not evidence" they will never know what the evidence is.

Here's an example of you trying to appeal us to lower our standards, as if our normal, rational standard for evidence is too high. You aren't trying to explain how your evidence is actually good, or what we aren't recognizing with a more lucid explanation. You're just trying to shame us that we are unreasonable or biased in our rational standard.

Also, those who are guided by God will recognize the evidence.

Are you claiming to be guided by God, and this is why you think the evidence is good, but we can't? You do realize this is a logical fallacy, yes?

 

[Trailblazer]

I argue that the ONLY thing that would render a messenger authentic is when they make true and detailed predictions that cannot be coincidence or a random guess.

Baha’u’llah predicted many things that later came to pass. In this book, which can be read online, is a list of 30 specific things Baha’u’llah predicted that later came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

 

[F1fan]

No, I do not bring them up unsolicited. I meant what I said. The last thing I want to do is talk about my beliefs. I only answer posts because I feel an obligation to answer them. Don't say one more thing about Baha'u'llah or the Baha'i Faith and you won't hear from me.

People do not always like their job but they do it because it puts food on the table. I answer posts because I consider it my responsibility, even though that means I have no time for anything else. My life is in shambles. Anyone who thinks I like talking about my beliefs needs to have their head examined.

OMG.

 

[F1fan]

Baha’u’llah predicted many things that later came to pass. In this book, which can be read online, is a list of 30 specific things Baha’u’llah predicted that later came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

You posted them. There was nothing terribly impressive.

A prophet needs to knock people's socks off. Anyone can do a list of vague things.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you claiming to be guided by God, and this is why you think the evidence is good, but we can't? You do realize this is a logical fallacy, yes?

That is not a logical fallacy because what God does is not subject to logic. God bestows favor on whomsoever He chooses.

“No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

God guides those who earnestly seek Him, those who make a sincere effort and are willing to look at the evidence.

““Whoso maketh efforts for Us,” he shall enjoy the blessings conferred by the words: “In Our Ways shall We assuredly guide him.”” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 266-267

The reason most people cannot see the evidence is because they reject it out of hand. There is a logical reason why God cannot guide these people, because it would require overriding their free will decision to reject the evidence, and God never overrides our free will decisions.

"Some were guided by the Light of God, gained admittance into the court of His presence, and quaffed, from the hand of resignation, the waters of everlasting life, and were accounted of them that have truly recognized and believed in Him. Others rebelled against Him, and rejected the signs of God, the Most Powerful, the Almighty, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 145

 

[Trailblazer]

A prophet needs to knock people's socks off.

My socks were knocked off.

 

[Koldo]

There is no such thing as undeniable evidence because there is no evidence that cannot be denied.

This is exactly why I have explained what I meant by that term.

There is not such thing as a reasonable person as that is a totally subjective call.

Do you think it is reasonable to consider a self-proclaimed prophet to be a con man when you don't see anything truly remarkable about this man?

 

[Koldo]

That is not a logical fallacy because what God does is not subject to logic. God bestows favor on whomsoever He chooses.

“No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

God guides those who earnestly seek Him, those who make a sincere effort and are willing to look at the evidence.

““Whoso maketh efforts for Us,” he shall enjoy the blessings conferred by the words: “In Our Ways shall We assuredly guide him.”” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 266-267

The reason most people cannot see the evidence is because they reject it out of hand. There is a logical reason why God cannot guide these people, because it would require overriding their free will decision to reject the evidence, and God never overrides our free will decisions.

"Some were guided by the Light of God, gained admittance into the court of His presence, and quaffed, from the hand of resignation, the waters of everlasting life, and were accounted of them that have truly recognized and believed in Him. Others rebelled against Him, and rejected the signs of God, the Most Powerful, the Almighty, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 145

I can see the moon right now. Has God overriden my free will to make me see the moon and believe it is truly there?

 

[F1fan]

That is not a logical fallacy because what God does is not subject to logic. God bestows favor on whomsoever He chooses.

This is a terrible excuse. And yet another fallacy.

God isn't posting, you are. God isn't making claims, you are. Your claims are subject to being criticized for fallacies as we debate. That your claims include referring to a God is irrelevant, and does not exempt the rules of logic.

God guides those who earnestly seek Him, those who make a sincere effort and are willing to look at the evidence.

Prove a God exists. Then prove it guides people. And prove that those who claim to be guided by a God aren't faking it.

The reason most people cannot see the evidence is because they reject it out of hand.

That's not the case here, your evidence is not good as many of us explain to you in detail. We point out your fallacies and you reject it, as you just did.

There is a logical reason why God cannot guide these people, because it would require overriding their free will decision to reject the evidence, and God never overrides our free will decisions.

OK, but first prove this God exists, and then that it actually does this. Until then you offer us no evidence at all that these claims are true, and we don't believe you.

 

[Nimos]

“No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

The problem is that these are claims, Baha'u'llah claim that there is only one God, some other religions disagree. That is something that we have to take into account, before we can talk about whether or not he is a messenger. If you recall, I tried to explain this in one of my former posts. You have said that we can't prove God, if im not mistaken? So this causes some issues, because how is Baha'u'llah going to prove his claim that "No God is there but him"?

I think you would agree, that just because he refer to himself as a messenger, doesn't mean that his claim automatically gets verified as true.

So this puts us in a weird deadlock situation
You believe, if im not mistaken, that it is through the messengers that we get evidence for God right? Yet they can't prove that there is only one God or even one to begin with, because no one can prove God. So how are they going to be evidence for God, when we can't verify their claim to begin with?

It is going to end up in a circle or simply with it being about having blind faith in these messengers as having gotten their information from God despite that no one can prove him.

 

[F1fan]

My socks were knocked off.

I'll bet they were hanging from a toe already, maybe it was a light breeze.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence for something that can be proven, like the election results were proven, cannot be compared with evidence for a Messenger of God. That is the fallacy of false equivalence.

This has nothing to do with honesty, it has to do with making an effort to look at the evidence. People cannot recognize the evidence unless they look at the evidence. If they continually say "that's not evidence" they will never know what the evidence is.

Also, those who are guided by God will recognize the evidence.

“So blind hath become the human heart that neither the disruption of the city, nor the reduction of the mountain in dust, nor even the cleaving of the earth, can shake off its torpor. The allusions made in the Scriptures have been unfolded, and the signs recorded therein have been revealed, and the prophetic cry is continually being raised. And yet all, except such as God was pleased to guide, are bewildered in the drunkenness of their heedlessness!” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 39

Correct, and that only makes it worse for you. You do not seem to understand that for an extraordinary claim one needs even stronger evidence. Not weaker evidence. You just hurt your own argument.

And no, you would need to prove your last statement. That only appears to be more self serving nonsense that you cannot justify.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe you recall my argument against gods that I called restricted choice. It was of the form, "If there is a God, the world could be this way or that, but absent a god, it must be that." Several examples were provided.

Yes, I remember that, but I it is just your personal opinion that the world would be a certain way if there was a God, so I do not consider that evidence that there is no God. We all have different opinions about how we think the world should be. That is why opinions are not reliable as a way to make any determinations.

You left out the one that applies to me. I find the evidence for belief insufficient. You never consider the possibility that Baha'u'llah was just another man claiming to speak for a god that either doesn't exist or doesn't communicate with people.

The evidence is insufficient for you but it is more than sufficient for me. No, I do not consider the possibility that Baha'u'llah was just another man claiming to speak for a God because the evidence to the contrary is too overwhelming. There is absolutely no way to explain the person of Baha'u'llah and all that He did on His mission, as well as all the Bible prophecies that were fulfilled by His coming as being "just another man claiming to speak for a god." Baha'u'llah also performed miracles than no ordinary man could perform, but that is only evidence to those who witnessed those miracles.

Obviously, I view the evidence differently from you, but maybe that is because I actually look at it and know what it is.

So what is reliable evidence (your term)? Is that supporting evidence?

Reliable evidence is evidence that supports the claims of Baha'u'llah.

Proofs of Prophethood

I'm aware that people evaluate evidence differently, but that doesn't make all such evaluations equally valid or valuable. We've discussed this before. Reason isn't arbitrary. Some people become adept at recognizing what evidence is relevant and what it implies using valid reasoning to arrive at sound conclusions. Others do not, and cannot recognize that their analysis is flawed. Yet the ones that can do this well will identify the flawed thinking. This creates a situation where both sides think they have valid albeit different answers, and only one knows the other doesn't.

Do you realize how arrogant this sounds: "Some people become adept at recognizing what evidence is relevant and what it implies using valid reasoning to arrive at sound conclusions."

What makes you think that you are adept at recognizing the evidence and using valid reasoning and others are not?

Who is the judge of flawed thinking? How do you know somebody's thinking is flawed? It could well be that it is your thinking that is flawed and you don't even realize that. It could well be that Baha'u'llah is actually a Messenger of God and you missed the boat. Only people who are sincerely seeking truth will ever catch that boat because it is not an easy boat to catch and only a few will board it. What was true when Jesus first walked the earth is true now, only these verses no longer apply to Christians because many people have boarded that boat, one third of humanity. I believe that the narrow gate and the road that leads to life is now the Baha'i Faith.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Correct, and that only makes it worse for you. You do not seem to understand that for an extraordinary claim one needs even stronger evidence.

The extraordinary evidence is there for the taking. If people choose not to take it that is on them, not on God or Baha'u'llah. They have both done their due diligence but they are not responsible for making people see what they adamantly refuse to see. Free will reigns supreme.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is that these are claims, Baha'u'llah claim that there is only one God, some other religions disagree. That is something that we have to take into account, before we can talk about whether or not he is a messenger. If you recall, I tried to explain this in one of my former posts.

Hi Nimos, still my favorite atheist. You always make my day when you show up.

I am sorry I did not yet respond to that post but I plan to answer it as soon as I can climb out from under all these posts.

You have said that we can't prove God, if im not mistaken? So this causes some issues, because how is Baha'u'llah going to prove his claim that "No God is there but him"?

He can't prove that and that is why it can never be a fact but is rather a belief. However, a belief can be true or false, logically speaking, and it is up to us to determine if it is true or false, IF we want to know.

I think you would agree, that just because he refer to himself as a messenger, doesn't mean that his claim automatically gets verified as true.

Of course I agree with that because it makes logical sense.

So this puts us in a weird deadlock situation
You believe, if im not mistaken, that it is through the messengers that we get evidence for God right? Yet they can't prove that there is only one God or even one to begin with, because no one can prove God. So how are they going to be evidence for God, when we can't verify their claim to begin with?

We can verify the claims of Baha'u'llah for ourselves by looking at the evidence that backs up His claims.

It is going to end up in a circle or simply with it being about having blind faith in these messengers as having gotten their information from God despite that no one can prove him.

We can never prove that as a fact that will be universally accepted as true. That is why after over 2000 years two thirds of the world population still does not believe in Jesus Christ. It can never be proven that He was who He claimed to be.

We can prove to ourselves that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, but for obvious logical reasons not *everyone* will be able to prove that to themselves. One reason they won't be able to is because they never even give that evidence a fair shot. Before they have ever even looked at the evidence they say "that's not evidence." That is called prejudice and there is nowhere to go with that. Another reason they won't be able to do that is because not all people will view the same evidence in the same way since all people are very different.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The extraordinary evidence is there for the taking. If people choose not to take it that is on them, not on God or Baha'u'llah. They have both done their due diligence but they are not responsible for making people see what they adamantly refuse to see. Free will reigns supreme.

`Sorry, but you have failed to produce even "ordinary" evidence. This is why your claims are not taken seriously.

Trying to argue for a religion based upon evidence is a losing battle.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The extraordinary evidence is there for the taking. If people choose not to take it that is on them, not on God or Baha'u'llah. They have both done their due diligence but they are not responsible for making people see what they adamantly refuse to see. Free will reigns supreme.

OOOH!. That's exciting! I'd love to see that "extraordinary evidence," if you could just tell me where it is "for the taking." Looking forward hopefully...

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a terrible excuse. And yet another fallacy.

God isn't posting, you are. God isn't making claims, you are. Your claims are subject to being criticized for fallacies as we debate. That your claims include referring to a God is irrelevant, and does not exempt the rules of logic.

I do not make any claims, I only pass along the claims of Baha'u'llah.

If you say someone committed a fallacy the right thing is to explain how they committed it, yet few atheists ever explain how I committed any fallacies. It is only fair to explain because otherwise I cannot defend myself.

Prove a God exists. Then prove it guides people. And prove that those who claim to be guided by a God aren't faking it.

As I just said to @Nimos, that is a belief so it cannot be proven.

That's not the case here, your evidence is not good as many of us explain to you in detail. We point out your fallacies and you reject it, as you just did.

No, you say I commit fallacies and then you never explain what they are or how I committed them. This is wholly unjust.

OK, but first prove this God exists, and then that it actually does this. Until then you offer us no evidence at all that these claims are true, and we don't believe you.

I cannot prove that God exists, nobody can.

I don't care if you believe what I believe and I don't expect you to. Why would I?

Why do you keep asking me for something you know I don't have?

 

[QuestioningMind]

It is only unconvincing evidence for the people it fails to convince.
It is convincing evidence for those who are convinced by it.

No argument there. So how did you get from some evidence may be convincing to some people but not others to there's no such thing as unconvincing evidence?

 

[Trailblazer]

OOOH!. That's exciting! I'd love to see that "extraordinary evidence," if you could just tell me where it is "for the taking." Looking forward hopefully...

I can post it to you but you will not view it the same way I do, as extraordinary, because you are a different person.

A long time ago, I got tired of people asking me for evidence so I put it all in one post.

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah