Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It is all in how we words things and what we say can be easily misconstrued. That is why we post back and forth.
There is such a thing as unconvincing evidence, it is evidence that does not convince.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
There is such a thing as unconvincing evidence, it is evidence that does not convince.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is quite unfair of you to blame your founder for your poor debating techniques. You have made claims. Do not blame someone else. Even if he made those claims by repeating them you adopt them as your own.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That is the fallacy of false equivalence because seeing something that is visible in the material world is not equivalent to seeing a spiritual truth. God does not have to override your free will to get you to see what is clearly visible to your eyes but God would have to override your free will in order to make you see a spiritual truth that is not clearly visible to everyone.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I make no claims because I have nothing to claim. I believe the claims but I am not responsible to make anyone else believe them. That is not my homework.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my denial again. Fine, just as you showed you clear logical fallacies yesterday the next time that you make a claim I will point it out to you. And yes, when you use a source showing that it is valid is part of your homework. You do not just get to assume that someone is a "messenger from God". This was already explained to you by another poster, My apologies for not remembering.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
You can't merely claim it is a false equivalence. You need to substantiate the claim.
Why doesn't God need to override my free will to make me believe the moon is up there?
Keep this in mind: If God is the creator, it was God that granted me my sight, which is what makes me believe the moon is up there. It is by God's design that I take for granted the moon's existence.
Now, by the same token, why can't we also have a spiritual sense that would make God's existence clear to us in the same way the moon's existence is obvious to us?
firedragon
Veteran Member
I am asking specifically for a creator. What is a verifiable evidence? "Some sort of"? Thats the most vague statement.
Give an example. A specific example.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
If all He did was claim He spoke for God that would not be evidence. The evidence is what He actually did to back up His claims:
Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era
The existence of false messengers of God does not prove that there are no true Messengers of God.
Of course many people claim to be Messengers of God, or even God Himself, but that does not mean that a true Messenger of God would not also claim that. Of course He would claim that because He would want people to know who He was and what His message was.
It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because many people falsely claim to be Messengers of God, therefore there have never been any true Messengers of God. What indicates whether a man was a true Messenger a God is the evidence that backs up his claims.
Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern
1. X is true for A.
2. X is true for B.
3. Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.
Faulty generalization - Wikipedia
For example, if a person sees 10 people, all of them falsely claiming to be Messengers of God they may erroneously conclude that there are no true Messengers of God.
If there is even one true Messenger then it is possible there are other true Messengers of God, since an omnipotent God can send as many Messengers as He wants to, whenever He wants to.
I have never been surprised because I know that most people do not and will not believe what I believe and I know why.
Facts also matter to me, which is why I said what I did in this post a few months ago:
How important are facts within your religious beliefs?
But please note that the same facts will never be viewed in the same way by everyone because all people are different.
Yes, Messengers are all I have but how is that related to what I said?
I said: My method might not work for you because you are a different person who thinks differently from me. I believe that there is a rational path to belief in God but first one has to be able to think rationally.
You said: You've effectively told me that such a path can't exist.
But I never told you that a rational path to belief in God does not exist.You said: You've effectively told me that such a path can't exist.
I cannot give you something I don't have. That would be like you going in a store and insisting that the salesperson come up with a product they do not sell in that store.
I absolutely do not think that if I repeat that Messengers are the only evidence for God that atheists are going to buy what I am saying. In fact, I wish they would stop asking me for something I already told them I not have, as it is a waste of time for both of us.
You are probably right, but why do you think that they *initially* believed in God? Do you think that people are born believing in God? I think that most people believe in God because of a religion and statistics back that up.
According to the statistics, 84 percent of the world population has a faith.
Because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. It does not matter if you call them a Messenger; they are holy men who founded the religions, so they are intermediaries between God and man. Sure, there are a few believers who believe in God but not a Messenger but that is not the norm. The point is that with no Messengers or holy men very few people would believe in God.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I fully agree. However, that does not mean that there are no men who speak for God, and that was the point I was making.
I can post what I believe God is, but I have no hypothesis about God since I am not trying to say that I believe God exists because of x, y, or z.
God in the Baháʼí Faith
The Baháʼí view of God is essentially monotheistic. God is the imperishable, uncreated being who is the source of all existence.[1] He is described as "a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty".[2][3] Though transcendent and inaccessible directly, his image is reflected in his creation. The purpose of creation is for the created to have the capacity to know and love its creator.[4] God communicates his will and purpose to humanity through intermediaries, known as Manifestations of God, who are the prophets and messengers that have founded religions from prehistoric times up to the present day.[5]
The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence. While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.
While the Baháʼí writings teach of a personal god who is a being with a personality (including the capacity to reason and to feel love), they clearly state that this does not imply a human or physical form.[2] Shoghi Effendi writes:
What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms, and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy.[15][16]
Nimos
Well-Known Member
No, worries can see you are already in a heated debate here, so you don't have to reply to itHi 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.
Agree, but in order for us to be able to do that, doesn't he first have to establish the truth of his claim? Because otherwise we are not really working with anything tangible right?
Sort of like you and me having a discussion about the color of someone's car, but haven't even establishing that this person even own a car to begin with. And when we finally realize that and ask about it, he/she answers that they won't tell. Then why would be bother discussing the color then?
We can only look at individual claims. If I made the following claims and we could somehow verify them as being true:
1. Cats loves me.
2. Dogs loves me.
3. Horses loves me.
Does that mean that, if I make a claim that "Pigs loves me" is also true?
The obvious answer is no, each claim has to be verified as being true or false. So when Baha'u'llah claim that there is only one God, then we have to verify that. Exactly as we would have to verify that he is a messenger of God. And all the claims he makes we would have to verify individually.
And even if we could verify a lot of these, does still not mean that he is a messenger of God until that itself have been verified as being true.
Exactly, which is why we call it faith. People have faith in Jesus, God and the bible as being true. But it is based on faith, which means that it lacks knowledge. I have said it before, but will do it again. You only need faith when you don't have knowledge, otherwise there is no need for faith.
This is where I believe you take a wrong approach. Proof, knowledge and "truth" are connected, if I can prove to you that something is a particular way, I need to have so much knowledge about it, that it is without a doubt the best possible explanation there is and therefore we refer to it as being true (not absolute). That is basically what a proof gives us, right.
And if your proof is good or valid then that will convince pretty much everyone, because when tested it will keep confirming what you say.
If I told you that aliens are real, because I can prove it to myself, then its not really worth anything, because if you don't agree and have no way of verifying my claim, then you can't confirm my proof, its impossible.
And therefore you would be correct in saying that I do not have proof of aliens, but merely have a belief that they are true. But this is not a representation of the actual truth, because either aliens exist or they don't. Its not like aliens exists for me, but not for you.
I don't think that is correct. As I said just above with the example of the car and we do it again.
You make the claim that someone's car is red, and to that I answer, this person haven't even demonstrated that he has a car, so it doesn't matter what color it might be. And to that you reply, it is red, if you simply listen to what this person have said about it, then its obviously red!!
Do you see the issue here? Baha'u'llah need to demonstrate that the God he is talking about is even real, before it makes sense to talk about whether he is a messenger or not. Its jumping over the whether or not he has a "car" to begin with, you simply assume that he does and what he is saying proves that it is red, and given that it is red, that proves that he own a car.
But what you describing are not proof, but faith.
I agree, evidence can point to different things and even several things at once at the same time. But it still doesn't change that Baha'u'llah can't provide evidence for his claim of there being only one God or even one to begin with, given that you don't believe this is possible for anyone.
So from this we should be able to agree on the following, that absolutely no amount of evidence will ever result in him being able to proof that his claim is correct about God. Which means that it will natural follow that it is also impossible to establish that he is a messenger of God. And therefore we won't be able to prove it, so it has to be based on faith.
Wouldn't you say that this is how it would logically make sense, given the criteria that you have put forward, that no one can ever prove God?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Of course I agree that agree that there are people who claim to speak for their gods who aren't evidence for their gods?
The answer is not nothing. What my purported "Messengers" have going for them that those other purported prophets don't is to be found on the list of criteria that "I believe" can be used to determine if a man was a true Messenger of God or not. Very few men would meet all these criteria.
The minimum criteria would be:
1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.
2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.
3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.
4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.
5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.
This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.
Other criteria he would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God. That would be a dead giveaway that he was trying to promote his religion as being the only true one, which would lead to suspicion right off the bat because none of the true Messengers of God have talked down other Messengers who preceded them. It is the followers of these religions that talk down the other religions, not the Messengers. There are reasons for that but I do not want to get off the subject at hand.
Quick question: why do all religious claimants have to use archaic language? Is there a rule that says they must say "thee" or "thou" when they mean "you?" Is there a requirement to begin any explanation of anything with "Lo!" or "O, hear?"
I just ask because I always think the best way to get people to understand what you're saying is to say it in the language they use and are most familiar with.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes, it is only a few people, as it is always only a few who believe in a *new* Messenger of God in the first centuries.
Given human nature, it makes logical sense why only a few recognize the new Messenger of God (see below).
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.
That was written and applied only to when Christianity was the narrow gate that led to life, when there were very few Christians in the first centuries, but Christianity is no longer the narrow road that leads to life because about 30% of the world population is now Christians. Given that Christianity is the largest religion in the world, Christianity is now the broad road.
I believe that just as Christianity was the small gate and the narrow road that led to eternal life in the first centuries when there were few Christians, the Baha'i Faith is now the small gate and the narrow road that leads to eternal life in this age. The Baha’i Faith and is the narrow gate because only a few people recognize God’s new religion in the beginning and enter through that gate.
I believe that in every new age, the religion at the narrow gate is the new religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.
Jesus told us to enter through the narrow gate, the gate that leads to eternal life, and He said few people would find that gate... It is narrow, so it is difficult to get through... It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel but that is not the road to everlasting life.
“The Book of God is wide open, and His Word is summoning mankind unto Him. No more than a mere handful, however, hath been found willing to cleave to His Cause, or to become the instruments for its promotion. These few have been endued with the Divine Elixir that can, alone, transmute into purest gold the dross of the world, and have been empowered to administer the infallible remedy for all the ills that afflict the children of men. No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 183
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not know about the Bible, but Tony answered the question as to why the Writings of Baha'u'llah were translated the way they were and I just happened to save that post because that question comes up a lot:
Aupmanyav said: I always wonder why Bahais have not changed the writings of the Bahai Trinity in modern English? Why this use of Shakespearean English?
It does make Bahai writings seem ancient.
Tony said: The reason is that Shoghi Effendi went to England to study English so He could better translate the Writings of Baha'u'llah from Persian and Arabic into English.
From his studies he determined that King James English was the best form to portray Persian and Arabic to English speakers.
Apparently Persian and Arabic have a form of poetic prose that is hard to portray to English speakers. King James English must in a small way convey some of that poetic prose experienced by Persian and Arabic speakers.
Shoghi Effendi offered that the future may see different translations.
RegardsTony
#155 Tony Bristow-Stagg
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Are you asking what is the specific verifiable evidence I would need to warrant belief in a creator being? That would depend on how you are defining this proposed creator being. Just like if you were to ask me what verifiable evidence would I need to warrant belief in magical pixies, I would first have to ask you what the characteristics of these magical pixies you are proposing exist actually are. Even then, depending on how vaguely you were to define magical pixies or this creator being, I might not know specifically what evidence would be sufficient. I only know that it would have to be evidence that could be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified
firedragon
Veteran Member
Just a creator being. The existence of one. It does not have to depend on anyones definition, but this basic statement you yourself made. If you want to posit a character visible etc etc like Thor or a cow, that is a third or fourth step after defining evidence for the existence of a "creator being".
So what would be a "specific verifiable evidence"? Provide an example!
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
How can this be evidence?
Someone can say, i saw a UFO and an alien talked to me.
Its not an evidence the UFO and the alien exists.
We are already. simply science doesn't call it god.
Why do you assume god expects you to do anything?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
This is the fallacy of false equivalence because the verification process for elections is completely different from the verification process for a Messenger of God. Moreover, one claim (that Trump lost) can be proven as a fact, the other claim (Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God) can only be proven to oneself. It can never be proven as a fact that everyone will believe.
It does not matter what millions of people believe, it only matters what is true. That is another fallacy, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.
I already know that you require verifiable evidence and as such it is a done deal. You are not going to believe in God because there will never be any verifiable evidence.
Of course God knows the evidence you require, God is all-knowing. Why would you think that God expects you to change the threshold of evidence that you require?
Again, that is the fallacy of false equivalence because Trump's messengers are not equivalent to a Messenger of God and the claims they make are not the same, so the evidence required to back up those claims can NEVER be the same.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
For some bizarre reason you think I expect you to be any different from who you are.
God is a special case, a very special case, a case UNLIKE any other case, because God is not verifiable and never will be verifiable because God is not subject to verification. Please explain how a God defined as below can EVER be verified. Try to use your logical mind.
The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence. While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.
God in the Baháʼí Faith
God has a plan to get His message out to everyone but that does not mean that everyone will recognize the message. I never claimed that. God knows that everyone will not recognize His Messenger but that does not mean that the message did not get out to everyone. It is out on the intranet for everyone to read in the Baha’i Reference Library online as well as available in print in over 800 languages.
God does not care whether everyone recognizes the Messenger, God only care that the Messenger successfully completes His mission and writes His scriptures. That was accomplished against all odds.
God does have a desire for everyone to believe, but only on His terms, as I have told you before. Logically it is God who sets the terms since He is the one who provides the evidence. Humans cannot set terms for an omnipotent God, that is illogical. In short, we get what we get from God and that is all we are going to get because God does not have to give us anything He does not choose to give us. In fact, God does not have to give us anything at all if He doesn't want to. It is only by God's mercy that He even sends Messengers because God can afford to dispense with all of humanity since God does not need us for anything. And then people complain that Messengers are not good enough evidence. I can only imagine what God thinks about these ungrateful people, but I am fairly certain that God is not thinking "well, looks like QM needs some other verifiable evidence, I had better hop to!"
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Without further specifications it sounds fairly simple. Let's say you are a creator being that we want proof of actually being who you claim to be: You tell us what you are going to create and then one second later it shows up out of thin air in front of us. It would just have to something pretty huge just to make sure it is not a magic trick.
That's sufficient to establish you as a creator being.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, that is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is to assume that he is a con man if you have no evidence of any con.