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

[CG Didymus]

No true Messenger of God ever preached polytheism. The older religions have no original scriptures, they were written by men who never even knew the Messenger hundreds of years after the Messenger lived and they do not accurately reflect what he taught. Nobodyu can ever really know what He taught since He never wrote His own scriptures, the religion was passed down by oral tradition.

So things got passed down orally then got written down. But, we can never know what the messenger's original teachings were. Or, religious beliefs got passed down and some got written down that had stories of multiple Gods, some had only one God, some had incarnations of Gods, some had their God or Gods speak from heaven and even intervene in the lives of the people, some had prophets, some had demons and some had angels. Now what makes more sense... That the one true God was behind all of this and let people mangle the original teachings, or there were no "original' teachings and people made up everything about their religion including their Gods and their messengers?

 

[KWED]

All the Messengers of God provide the same kind of evidence, but the evidence for Baha'u'llah is more verifiable since there is written documentation whereas we do not have that for the previous Messengers that date back in history.

The following evidence (1-4) is objective evidence according to the definition because it can be examined and evaluated:

1. The character of Baha'u'llah
2. The life of Baha'u'llah
3. The mission of Baha'u'llah (the history)
4. The Writings of Baha'u'llah

What does objective evidence mean?

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.

What does objective evidence mean?

This means that we know he existed and, to a degree, what he was like.
It does not provide evidence that he was a messenger from god.

An important point that some of you seem to be losing sight of...
Before any claim that someone is a "messenger of god" can even be considered, first the existence of that god needs to be proved.
No one has done that, so any claim relating to that god can be dismissed as unreasonable until that god's existence has been demonstrated.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I consider that a long time.

And so what if I start threads about God? After all, this IS a religious forum.

What seems odd to me and my husband also commented on this, is why so many atheists are on a religious forum.

What is even stranger is why so many atheists like to talk about God. Unless someone is holding a gun to their heads, why else would they flock to my threads like bees to honey?

It seems to me that the atheists are getting a whole lot more out of the threads I start than I am getting, since I get nothing but misery. Moreover, I already know that God exists so I don't need threads like this. That is why I don't start them for myself.

Perhaps you might want to consider several facts:

• In the United States, more people claim to distrust atheists more than just about anyone else.
• In most of the world, religious people put a huge amount of effort into making laws (that would of course apply to non-religious people) that reflect their religious viewpoints.
• The percent of people unwilling to vote for “well-qualified” candidates of their party who belongs to certain groups are: Atheist 50 percent; Muslim 38 percent; Homosexual 37 percent; Evangelical Christian 15 percent; Women 12 percent; Jewish 10 percent; Black 6 percent; Catholic 5 percent.

So look at that list, and tell me why you still think that our "interest" in religion is "odd."

Because as you ought to know, it's important to understand your enemy.

 

[CG Didymus]

And my question is, why shouldn't this God make himself known to people "He" supposedly cares about? This God you speak of should know exactly what would convince me of "His" existence, if "He" actually cared. So all I can conclude is that "He" doesn't care for me to know about his existence, or can't show me that "He" exists or "He" doesn't actually exist. I'm not sure why it's my problem if I can't tell that "He" exists.

As far as I know, God didn't give me anything.

What funny is in the Bible God does all kinds of things that makes himself known. But lots of people look at that and think that it's is just a bunch of made up stories... including Trailblazer.

 

[KWED]

No, the fallacy does not apply to God because God IS the exception to every generally accepted rule.

This is like the definition of "special pleading"!

Logical fallacies do not apply to God because God is not subject to logic.

More special pleading.

 

[KWED]

What seems odd to me and my husband also commented on this, is why so many atheists are on a religious forum.

What is even stranger is why so many atheists like to talk about God. Unless someone is holding a gun to their heads, why else would they flock to my threads like bees to honey?

It seems to me that the atheists are getting a whole lot more out of the threads I start than I am getting, since I get nothing but misery. Moreover, I already know that God exists so I don't need threads like this. That is why I don't start them for myself.

Do you question why doctors spend so much time dealing with illness, or teachers with ignorance?
If you hear someone in the pub saying "England won the last 3 World Cups", do you correct them or do you shrug and say "well, it's their opinion"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I consider that a long time.

Okay, but you tried to correct me when I said "months."

And so what if I start threads about God? After all, this IS a religious forum.

Threads about religion are fine. That doesn't explain why you create effectively the same thread over and over.

... and then complain about how it turned out, also over and over.

What seems odd to me and my husband also commented on this, is why so many atheists are on a religious forum.

It's kind of like environmentalists on climate change forums.

What is even stranger is why so many atheists like to talk about God. Unless someone is holding a gun to their heads, why else would they flock to my threads like bees to honey?

There's a comic about it:

Duty Calls

It seems to me that the atheists are getting a whole lot more out of the threads I start than I am getting, since I get nothing but misery. Moreover, I already know that God exists so I don't need threads like this. That is why I don't start them for myself.

Yet you keep creating these threads.

 

[CG Didymus]

This:

"He provided the evidence that support His claims."

Is a claim on your part. You would still need to provide at the very least his evidence, And you have not does so, or if you think that you have you only demonstrated that Mr. B did not have proper evidence.

By the way, that was a weak attempt at passing the buck.

I thought she has posted the evidence several times. He had a very good character. He was on a mission from God and did what he was supposed to do. And he wrote a bunch of things that say that God sent him and that God wants us to love one another and live in peace and harmony and obey all the new rules and moral codes that God told him to give us. So I guess we're supposed to realize that only a true manifestation of God could do that? Therefore, he is a manifestation of God. And, because he says God is real, therefore it proves God is real? I think that's her proof?

But again, for Moses, God sent plagues. God parted the seas. God sent manna. And when some of the people did something wrong, God sent poisonous snakes. Now that's what I'm talking about! That is proof! Only trouble is... did any of that really happen? Or, is it just a bunch of myths?

Now I've heard some Baha'is say that their guy could have done those some kinds of things, but then people would have believed because of the supernatural miraculous things going on. The Baha'i prophet didn't want that. He wants us to just take his word for it... That he's from God... Oh yeah, and because the world essentially rejected him, the world is going to have all kinds of trials and tribulations until we finally do believe in him. Don't you just love how God finds a way to get us to believe in him and love him?

 

[night912]

Logical fallacies do not apply to God because God is not subject to logic.

Hey. Looks like we both agree on something. Logic does not apply to God because he hasn't been demonstrated to exist. However, logic does apply to Trailblazer, that's you, because you have been demonstrated to exist. And logic applies to you even when you're being illogical, hence the term, "illogical." But just because logic doesn't apply to God, it does apply to your argument regarding your concept of God.

Logic - 1
Word games - 0

Care for a rematch?

 

[CG Didymus]

He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world

Prophecies that don't always fit. That came from Holy Books that were written by men. Like this book used by Baha'is...

There are a number of Buddhist texts foretelling Maitreya. Of these, the most important is the Anāgatavaṃsa (“The Chronicle of the Future [Buddha]”).​

So does this mean that Baha'is consider this text as true? Or, as usual, found a few things that they could use to "prove" Baha'u'llah is the return of Buddha and reject the rest of the book?

 

[CG Didymus]

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?

Could of fooled me. You're sure not doing a good job at not spreading the word.

 

[night912]

What funny is in the Bible God does all kinds of things that makes himself known. But lots of people look at that and think that it's is just a bunch of made up stories... including Trailblazer.

Actually, you're wrong. Trailblazer believes the stories that she cherry picked.

 

[F1fan]

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

It is you who does not understand that the God claim is different than any other claim and that is why it is not special pleading.

THIS is special pleading. It is YOU saying God is off limits because it's God, and God is special.

No, a God claim is still open to scrutiny like any other claim.

 

[F1fan]

Nope....

Messengers are the evidence that God exists because they represent God on earth.
Messengers make claims to represent God on earth.
Messengers provide evidence that support their claims that they represent God on earth.

This is circular reasoning. Messengers are from God, so that proves God exists. You are qualifying the "messengers of God" by asserting they are authentic (but you don't prove they are authentic versus frauds), and then say they are OF God and this proves God exists? It doesn't. It just makes claims.

God MUST exist because there are people who say they are Messengers of God, and that they say they are messengers of God this proves the God exists.

This is absurd and highly flawed.

 

[F1fan]

It can be proven to oneself if one looks at the evidence that supports the claims of Baha'u'llah and connects the dots. I am not saying it is easy, but it can be done. God has never been much for making things easy.

You need to have skill to recognize self-deception. Most will justify belief in what they want to believe in, and not really subject their desires to adequate scrutiny like others in debate will do. That you face a lot of critique suggests you allow belief with dubious evidence, and it appears to be self-verified. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[F1fan]

It can be proven to oneself but it cannot be proven as a fact that everyone will accept as true.

So if it's just up to individuals then I take it you have no problem that most everyone else doesn't think it's valid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is circular reasoning. Messengers are from God, so that proves God exists. You are qualifying the "messengers of God" by asserting they are authentic (but you don't prove they are authentic versus frauds), and then say they are OF God and this proves God exists? It doesn't. It just makes claims.

God MUST exist because there are people who say they are Messengers of God, and that they say they are messengers of God this proves the God exists.

This is absurd and highly flawed.

Yes, but it s a BIG circle

I wonder if she did truly fool herself. Some people do not think that reasoning is circular if the circle is large enough. Though I am still shaking my head at special pleading for God being okay because he is special argument.

 

[F1fan]

The claim that God exists is really not that extraordinary, except to atheists.
It is drop dead obvious to believers, as the evidence is everywhere.

Well if the God is one that some other theist doesn't believe in, then it's going to be a problem.

Your assertion here suggests a very vague agreement among theists. Atheists reject the many diverse claims of gods that theists make. That theists disagree about God suggests that there is uncertainty about what they even think God is. So how certain and confident can theists actually be? Not very much, if they are honest with themselves.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, but it s a BIG circle

I wonder if she did truly fool herself. Some people do not think that reasoning is circular if the circle is large enough. Though I am still shaking my head at special pleading for God being okay because he is special argument.

It's a known fact that the bigger the circle the less circular it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a known fact that the bigger the circle the less circular it is.

Now that's logic!!