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

[Trailblazer]

Really? Eight posts of yours mentioning Baha'u'llah or the Baha'i Faith before the first person mentioned Baha'u'llah, and that was Unveiled Artist. And she mentioned him in response to what you said in one of your posts. I think, which means I have a "belief" that it is you that first mentioned Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith. But now, I'm not so sure. 'Cause I'm completely confident in your ability to find a way to "prove" what you believe is the truth.

But, you know what, why do you act as if that is something bad? You are a Baha'i and are supposed to be spreading the word. Why pretend that you aren't trying to do that? Lots of people here on the forum know a lot about the Baha'i Faith, and some for the first time, because of you. You should be proud of yourself. But, instead, you say it is "absolutely untrue"? And you have "evidence" right here on this thread? And it is "unjust" to accuse you of doing something you did not do? And that something is bringing up the Baha'i Faith and Baha'u'llah? Okay, if you have "evidence" I guess that "proves" it. Sorry, I was wrong.

I do not know who said what first and I do not care and given the length of this thread I am sure not going to go back and look just to prove something. I do know one thing, why i started this thread, what my intentions were and they are stated in the OP. I also know I do not want to talk about the the Baha'i Faith with atheists, because they don't even believe in God, it, so why bother?

I do not have to pretend that I am not trying to spread the word because I am not trying to do that. How do you think you know what my intentions are?

Yes, lots of people know about the Baha'i Faith because of me, because it comes up in conversation and I am always on this forum, but tat does not mean I want to talk about it, and I certainly don't want to talk about the same things over and over to the same people who have no interest in what I believe. I am much more interested in philosophy and psychology than religion whcih is why I start threads about God and proof since I want to know what other people think. But if people ask me what I believe I have to be honest and explain the Baha'i beliefs about Messengers of God and how they are the evidence for God.

I learned my lesson about evidence a long time ago. I know that atheists will never consider Messengers to be evidence and that is why I asked in the OP:

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?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?​

But only a few people of all the people who responded on this thread told me what they would consider evidence for God. Everyone else launched into me and told me my evidence was worthless. But MY evidence is not what I wanted to talk about.

 

[Trailblazer]

These are all posts by you. I think there is eight of them that mention the Baha'i Faith or Baha'u'llah. All these were posted before anyone asked you about the Baha'i Faith or Baha'u'llah. Again, you're a Baha'i. Why wouldn't you try and steer the conversation towards your religion? Why are you accusing people of false accusations?
↑
“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 scriptures that the Messengers reveal are accessible to everyone.
↑
I did not say that everyone will find the scriptures convincing...
I would not be convinced by the Bible but I was convinced by the Writings of Baha'u'llah because it is first person and it is not anecdotes.
↑
There are facts and there is information that indicate that my belief is true.
↑
Admittedly, Baha'is have a responsibility to carry the message of Baha'u'llah but after that has been done our work is done, unless people have questions.

I talk to them because they talk to me
↑
One of those messengers did predict that certain things would happen on such and such dates...
↑
I was referring to predictions made by a Messenger of God.

You said: One of those messengers should predict that it will happen on such and such dates...
I said: One of those messengers did predict that certain things would happen on such and such dates...

The name of that Messenger was Baha'u'llah. 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
↑
God cannot come down to earth to verify that His Messenger is actually a Messenger
↑
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
↑
they are not prophecies that were written for the purpose of Baha'u'llah proving He was a Prophet/Messenger of God. Rather, they were predictions that He made during the course of His life. For some people those predictions constitute evidence that Baha'u'llah was a Prophet/Messenger of God, but that is not why they were revealed.

Everything that Baha'u'llah predicted came true because He was inerrant. It is all recorded in history so it can easily be proven.
↑
Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly.
↑
we shall endeavor to show whether Bahá’u’lláh’s claim to Prophethood stands or falls by application of these tests: whether the things that He had spoken have followed and come to pass,

Cherry-picking some things I said out of context does not prove anything. Can you show me where I brought it up unsolicited? But it it makes you feel good to believe you are right and I am wrong have at it.

Just remember not to be asking me about the Baha'i Faith anymore and I won't talk to you about it. You might catch Duane (Truthseeker9) or Tony on occasion but I don't see any other Baha'is posting much on here, certainly no Baha'is who will be at your beck and call like I have been for four years. Most Baha'is have better things to do than live on a forum, like praying and studying the Writings and engaging in Baha'i activities with other Baha'is.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Given that god is an omniscient, omnipotent, infallible being that inhabits all of space/time, and we are just mammals with very limited sensory capabilities - that is clearly not possible.
If that is part of god's plan, he hasn't really thought it through.

Or that part of that plan allows us to embrace humility and in that state of being, all that can be Love, starts to unfold before our eyes.

Regards Tony

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, we can give them a reason to consider our proposal, but a whole lot of people aren't going to. What they're going to do instead is immediately look for reasons to dismiss and discredit the proposal...

Looking for problems with the supporting arguments is something everybody should be doing. Being overly credulous and just accepting anything, is not going to help you to distinguish reasonable proposals from fantasies.

None of which changes that fact that I've yet to see a justification for any 'god' that isn't either obviously flawed (no real effort required to see that it's flawed) or a rather pointless relabelling of something that obviously exists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The definition of God is below and it has evidence. The evidence is God's intermediaries known as Manifestations of God, who are the prophets and messengers that have founded religions from prehistoric times up to the present day.

That makes zero sense to me as all those religions are mutually exclusive and incompatible with one another.
Clearly they aren't all talking about the same god(s).

Now, if Columbus upon arriving in south america would have found out that those natives actually knew who Jesus was and had a bible - then you would have had a point.
But that wasn't the case at all, now was it?

So, if the claim is that ALL "prophets and messengers" that have founded religions, were send by the same god, then I feel like this makes a testable prediction: all people should have the same religion.

Clearly that isn't true. So if this is your claim, then I consider your claim to be demonstrably false.

That is the only way we can have any knowledge of God. We might be able to know that God exists if we pray for that knowledge and God answers our prayer but that would not be very useful because we would not know anything about God or His will for us.

Not to mention that you wouldn't be able to distinguish an actual answer from this god from a hallucination or self-deception.

As the famous saying goes: the easiest person to fool, is yourself

We would only know that God exists.

We would not. Beliefs and knowledge, aren't the same thing.
What you would have is a BELIEF, not knowledge.

The Baháʼí view of God is essentially monotheistic.

This directly contradicts your earlier claim that "all prophets and messengers" are from this god, since plenty of them preached polytheistic religions.

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]

Note the bolded part. This contradicts everything else you said.

The purpose of creation is for the created to have the capacity to know and love its creator

This contradicts the previous bolded part. God is "unknowable" and the purpose of creation is to "know".

Sounds like a fool's errand on a cosmic scale.

.[4] God communicates his will and purpose to humanity through intermediaries,

So he isn't "inaccessible" either.
Make up your mind.

known as Manifestations of God, who are the prophets and messengers that have founded religions from prehistoric times up to the present day.[5]

All of which are mutually exclusive and all of which preach very different gods. (plural)

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

Except when it isn't, apparently.
It's self-contradictory beyond being funny.

. 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.

So now you're saying that all those "messengers and prophets" got it completely wrong?

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.

Again... which is it? Is it knowable or unknowable? Clearly you want to have it both ways.


And then you wonder why I'm unimpressed.............

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have posted the evidence on this forum numerous times, so there is no point posting it again, just to hear all the atheists say "that's not evidence" again.

Ta ta for now.

You have posted claims.
Claims aren't evidence.
Claims require evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence that God exists are the Manifestations of God (Messengers). You can take it or leave it, that's your choice.

“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

By the same logic:

- the evidence for bigfoot are the people that claim to have seen him
- the evidence for lochness monster are the people that claim to have seen him
- the evidence for alien abduction are the people that claim to have been abducted
- .....


Do you understand the logical fail here?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never said that claims are evidence.

You did, by saying that "messengers are evidence".

"Messengers" are just people making claims.

So it essentially comes down to you saying that claims are evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only AFTER I looked at the evidence and determined that He was a Manifestation of God did I believe that what He wrote is true.

What evidence?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have not started a thread like this for a long time.

July:

If God existed how could it be proven?

 

[samtonga43]

There is no false assumption because there is no assumption. There is only a belief.
I believe that Baha''u'llah was evidence for God because Baha’u’llah was God’s Representative on earth.

Still one assumption in there, Tb. In order to be assumption-free your statement would have to read
"I believe that Baha''u'llah was evidence for God because I believe Baha’u’llah was God’s Representative on earth".

Sorry you don't like my belief. I don't like a lot of Christian beliefs but I don't continually pick at them.

LOL! It's not that I don't like your beliefs,Tb. Your beliefs are based on the writings of a man in jail in 1844 who thought God spoke to him and wrote God's words down (in17th Century English). I have now read quite a lot of these words; my rational mind will not allow me to give credence to the 'evidence' upon which your faith rests. But YOU like your beliefs, and that is what is important to you. Although, I have to say that you seem quite obsessed with the subject and I feel it's not good for you.

P.S. If you are asserting that my belief is false and you cannot prove that my belief is false that is a bald assertion.

I am asserting nothing.
I believe that your belief is false.
You believe that your belief is true.

What is "bald assertion?"

Let's see.. Is it like the B.Man saying that God spoke to him, and you saying that this is evidence of something?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is a false accusation. I did not steer the conversation to be about my beliefs. The very last thing I want to do is talk about my beliefs. All you have to do is read on this thread to see how it ended up being about my beliefs. It was other people who steered it that way.

You know that people can check this, right? They can read the thread for themselves.

All I did was respond to the posts that were posted to me. I have done nothing but answer posts since I started this thread.

That's right. You answered the threads with replies that steered the conversation to you and your personal beliefs.

I was really sorry I ever posted this thread after I realized that I would have so many posts to answer.

"How could I ever have predicted that this thread would turn out the same way as when I did the same thing a dozen times before?"

 

[samtonga43]

The evidence that God exists are the Manifestations of God (Messengers). You can take it or leave it, that's your choice.
“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

"The proof of his own person"
I've been wanting to ask about this, but keep forgetting. You quote this a lot, Tb.
Does it mean that the B.man himself is the proof of his writings? If so, how?
If not, what does it mean?

 

[samtonga43]

That is not what I have been saying. Listen carefully. I have been saying that we cannot prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God as a fact that will be accepted as true by everyone. However, we can prove to ourselves that He was a Messenger of God which proves that God exists since a ‘Messenger of God’ cannot exist if there is no God.

SO...

First Premise: A ‘Messenger of God’ cannot exist if there is no God.
Second Premise: MrB. was a Messenger of God

Conclusion: God exists.

Is this what you're saying, Tb?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not what I have been saying. Listen carefully. I have been saying that we cannot prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God as a fact that will be accepted as true by everyone. However, we can prove to ourselves that He was a Messenger of God which proves that God exists since a ‘Messenger of God’ cannot exist if there is no God.

You've said something like this a few times. What do you mean by "prove to ourselves" if it doesn't involve proving something as a fact?

 

[HonestJoe]

I do not agree on that. I believe that the Messengers of God are evidence for God’s existence.

You're not being very clear there. I thought we'd agreed that people claiming to speak for God doesn't mean any of them actually are speaking for God. If you had actual known Messengers of God you would have evidence (actually proof) of God but you don't. All you have are people claiming to speak for God and therefore no evidence.

That is correct. I believe that God exists because of what the Messengers reveal about God.

Again, you're being inconsistent. You initially said you're not saying "I believe God exists because of x, y, or z." but now you are saying that.

God is knowable only by His Manifestations (what I normally refer to as Messengers of God).

Fine, but it is a direct contradiction to call God unknowable but then to say he is knowable in any way at all, regardless of the means or extent. Unknowable means unknowable. You simply can't have it both ways.

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.

A concept conveniently designed to be impossible to disprove (like so much theology). You can't have any evidence for this by definition, since the evidence would require knowledge of the element you're claiming is unknowable. You're free to believe it but you can't claim to have evidence for it. You've still not progressed from "people claiming to speak for God" (or even "people who believe they speak for God").

Only if God were human and had human emotions would that imply imperfection. God has a mind and emotions but they are not like a human mind and emotions, as the definition says:

Then I would argue it is wrong (and dishonest) to use the words for human emotions and, as I said, totally impossible for any human to define, know, understand the "emotions" of God. So again, a belief for which evidence is impossible.

The basis for believing involves faith and belief in the Messenger, that He was truly a Messenger from God, but since the Messengers present evidence to back up their claims, it can be an evidence-based faith if we look at the evidence.

What evidence do these messengers present to support their claims/beliefs? Remember that it can't be a circular argument that relies on believing them to provide the evidence. You also need something that doesn't also work for all the people claiming to be messengers for different, contradictory gods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientific knowledge and knowledge of history and all other subjects related to life in the material world can be obtained in college... I already spent 20 years of my life pursuing that kind of knowledge and I finally realized it was not that important in the overall scheme of things. That is why I returned to my religion.

What? That article is not limited to scientific knowledge. It applies to your sort of knowledge as well.

Knowledge about God comes from God through the Manifestations of God so I get it my reading what Baha'u'llah wrote.

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5

And no, now you are trying to use a special pleading argument. You don't get to claim that God is different. This is why you do not know. You only believe. In fact you are making a huge error that should be obvious even to you. You are assuming that a God exists in the first place. Once you demonstrate that a God exists then you may be able to use your methodology, but until you do you only have a circular argument. You have multiple errors in just this one little secton.

 

[F1fan]

Hypothetically speaking, any belief could be wrong, not just a religious belief.

Great, this is why we need exceptional evidence when you refer to a God existing. You believing it exists means nothing to us. It's not like you are claiming you ate a ham sandwich for lunch, that is plausible and not controversial. Where it comes to specific religious claims that any arbitrary person believes is true we need to have verification for it. Otherwise we can't accept the claims of everyone since they contradict themselves.

Anyone could be mistaken. Is there a reason why you want me to say I could be mistaken? What I say will not make any difference because if I am mistaken I am mistaken and if I am not mistaken I am not mistaken. It really does not matter because what I say does not make anything true. A belief is either true or false.

So you need even more evidence for yourself as well as others since YOU could be mistaken. And if you care about truth then wouldn't you want to consider you ARE mistaken and assess your beliefs?

There's no problem with being a believer and you believe for your own sake of meaning. It is different when you opt to use your beliefs as a basis for belief in an open forum. It will be stressful, and others will ask you questions you don't ask yourself. Your mistakes are exposed.

So if you aren't here with openness to listen to others, and adjust your beliefs if you're shown to be in error, then you are just beating your head against a wall.

The criteria has to be based upon something known. I did not just make up my criteria out of thin air.

There is a criteria set in logic. It's objective and not designed to give one idea more advantages than some others. There is also a criteria of evidence, in that valid evidence has to be available to the senses and not require heavy interpretation. These are the high standards critical thinkers use. You criteria has been exposed as vastly less reliable and personal.

Why can't you use the objective criteria like others? Could it be that you wouldn't have the conclusions you want?

Since I believe I know who the true Messengers of God were that is what I base my criteria upon in order to determine who would qualify as a true Messenger. For example, since I believe that Moses and Jesus Muhammad were true Messengers met all the criteria I listed, I would expect any Messengers who came after them to meet the same criteria, since I believe there are certain criteria all true Messengers have to meet. My criteria are based upon history and who I believe the true Messengers were.

This is all rigged by you because you want the conclusion that you want. The advantage of objective criteria is that others will verify your conclusions if you follows the rules of thinking.

I believe my criteria is fair because it takes all the Messengers of God and thus all the religions into account.

But it's flawed because you assume there are gods that send messengers. You don't consider that some, or all, might be frauds.

 

[F1fan]

So what do you do when others disagree with you and point out your flaws in thinking?

Nothing, unless I think there are flaws in my thinking, in which case I change my thinking.

You have posted many flawed posts and others, and me, have pointed out the obvious flaws, and we observed you reject the criticisms. So you might THINK you're being honest with yourself, but the posts reveal you hold onto beliefs that don't have the logical foundation you think it does. I suspect you are aware of this to some degree which would explain your frustration. That would indicate cognitive dissonance kicking in.

The only facts I have are the facts about Baha'u'llah and the history of His Cause.

The facts that this person existed and claimed things is of no dispute. What is disputed is what he claims. Nothing suggests this guy was special or has any special knowledge from a supernatural source. You often post his writings, but that is not adequate to establish WHAT is written is factual. That YOU assume/believe these texts are true and factual is not relevant or logical. As you admit, you may be in error with your beliefs, so your judgments are not adequate. Facts have to be verifiable and not require heavy interpretation.

Why split hairs, believe and know are just words and they mean different things to different people.

There are several meanings but English has enough precision that proper definitions can be used, and no one has to be confused. We see theists often use ambiguous and misleading language when making their case. We also hear the assertions of "you atheists just don't get it". You've done this in the last day or so. If there is "something to get" then English has plenty of words with precise meanings that the "enlightened" can explain it.

When some people say they believe they might have a weak belief so they are uncertain, but when someone is certain of their beliefs then they might say they know.

So you could be wrong and atheists be correct. Notice your language here acknowledges there's no certainty. Being "certain of belief" doesn't mean the beliefs are factual and beyond error, it just means the person isn't open to the possibility of error. That is a trap the believer sets for themselves for some reason.

There was a time a few years ago when I believed, but thanks to all the atheists and Christians I have posted to now I know.

Right, many theists say the same thing. I call it "the redoubt of faith", and this means theists use criticism to defend their beliefs, and as the believer defends more and more this exaggerates the feeling that the self is correct. It also fires up the reward center of the brain so the believer can feel euphoria as they fight for their faith. Some theists have called this an experience of God. Actually it's just them getting a good shot of dopamine in the brain.

This explains why you are so defensive, aggressive, and stressed as you defend you faith against critics. Of course you feel as if you are more certain. Wouldn't you be foolish to spend all this time defending your beliefs if it turns out you're mistaken? To justify all your time you HAVE to think you are certain.

The irony is that people think they can weaken my beliefs by attacking them but the opposite happens because the more they attack my beliefs the more research I do to defend their attacks and lo! I uncover even more reasons why my beliefs have to be right.

Of course, this is how you manipulate the process to self-validate the beliefs you've already decided are true. The way you refer to criticism of your claims as "attack" indicates how you see debate as personal, and you have to defend yourself. This is part of the trap you set for yourself. It's a manipulative process. You avoid any objective approach. This is common among theists in debate forums.

 

[Trailblazer]

You know that people can check this, right? They can read the thread for themselves.

They can go ahead and do that if they have time to waste. I don't.

That's right. You answered the threads with replies that steered the conversation to you and your personal beliefs.

I did not steer it that way. I just answer posts. Steering implies that I wanted the conversation to go a certain way and you have no way of knowing what I was thinking because you are not me and you are not the all-knowing God.

Is there a reason you think that what I do this so important?