• 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?

Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Policy said:
I know. But if a god exists he has not presented convincing evidence to me
Click to expand...
Why would God present evidence to you personally?
Why would God be trying to convince you that He exists?
Policy said:
A just god could exist, where we are completely irrelevant to him. You just assume that humans are of any import to one or more gods. As far as you know we mean nothing to god.

I get that you believe otherwise, but how would I know your belief from fiction. How would you?
Click to expand...
I can't know, I can only believe. I believe on the basis of the evidence.
 
CG Didymus

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Aupmanyav said:
For example, I do not think Bahaollah ever mentioned Krishna or Buddha as manifestations. That is what the later Bahai leaders added on their own without Allah's sanction. This is corruption of the Message. Neither Krishna nor Buddha ever talked of the God of Abraham. Krishna said that he was the Supreme God. For Buddha, the talk of any God or manifestations was useless speculation which should not be indulged in.
Click to expand...

Tiberius said:
Shifting the blame doesn't explain why it happened.
Click to expand...
I'd agree some religious leaders did have their own interpretations and led people astray. But what about the Baha'i interpretations? Why are they the correct ones? They mangle Christian doctrines and beliefs that are based on the NT. Like Jesus rose from the dead and a literal Satan and hell. Then Baha'is take away the incarnation status of Krishna and they take away reincarnation. And with Buddha, they add in the God of Abraham.

And it's not like any of it is true. But it is what the followers of those religions believe. And if it's based on their Scriptures, it is not changes made later by some of the religious leaders. It was the people that wrote the Scriptures. And if they are wrong, how can Baha'is support anything taught by any of those older religions? And, in a way, they don't. They replace all the beliefs from all the other religions with their new and true interpretations. So, for a Baha'i to say they believe all of the other religions are true, doesn't mean much. Their religion is true and has replaced the older religions.
 
CG Didymus

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Truthseeker said:
Not in a scientific sense, or as in mathematics. This isn't about science or mathematics. You can't think outside of that box. This isn't about proving it so everybody can verify it.

No, it is not infallible, that is the essence of religious investigation. It is not like science or mathematics. That's not even true of science, either.
Click to expand...
Is there a religion or a sect of religion where the followers don't believe they have the truth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ppp
Tiberius

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Trailblazer said:
The effects or prayer cannot be measured. Just because a specific prayer was unanswered that proves nothing except that God chose not to answer a prayer request.
Click to expand...

And this situation is completely indistinguishable from a situation where there is no God at all. Isn't it?

Yes.
Click to expand...

Would you care to explain how, in your opinion, peer review helps to make sure that the personal biases of one individual do not influence the results of a study?
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Tiberius said:
And this situation is completely indistinguishable from a situation where there is no God at all. Isn't it?
Click to expand...
Only if you think that answered prayers are the only way to distinguish between God and no God.
Tiberius said:
Would you care to explain how, in your opinion, peer review helps to make sure that the personal biases of one individual do not influence the results of a study?
Click to expand...
On second thought I am changing my answer to no, since removing personal biases of one individual so they do not influence the results of a study is not the purpose of peer review according to all the articles I read. Can you find anything that says that is the purpose of peer review?
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
samtonga43 said:
You believe on the basis of what you believe is evidence.
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe on the basis of what I believe is evidence.
And if it is evidence then my beliefs are true. You cannot change that by stalking me.
My beliefs seem to bother you. Otherwise I have no idea why you keep stalking me.
Stalking me is not going to get rid of me. I'll leave when I am ready.

The Christian on another forum does not like my beliefs either but I told him that's too bad.
Other people deserve to know the truth about Return of Christ rather than his fantasy rapture beliefs.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Policy said:
Of course, That is the context that you set up in the OP. You asked your audience what they would find to be convincing evidence.
Click to expand...
I know I asked that. I said:
Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”
So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

You said:
I know. But if a god exists he has not presented convincing evidence to me.
#5278 Policy, Yesterday at 6:47 PM
Irrelevant to the fact that convincing evidence has not been presented.
#5290 Policy, Today at 3:12 AM

But what I was asking is what would be convincing evidence of God’s existence.
In other words, what evidence would be convincing to you?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top