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

[CG Didymus]

I don't know. This seems like the beginning of a debate. On the other hand it might not be depending on your response. I was about to call it a night. Could I answer this tomorrow? An answer would take some time, and I think really you should not put much weight on why I believe in Baha'i. You need to find your own answers. Independent investigation and all that.

You can take all the time you want. Part of investigating the truth would be to find out why others have accepted the Baha'i Faith as the truth. Then, to find out why others investigated it and then rejected it.

Right now there are several problems, and one of them is getting straight answers from Baha'is. But some of that seems to come from the Baha'i teachings themselves. A Baha'i can quote something that says how wonderful the Bible is, and later say that it is not wholly authoritative. They can say they believe in all the "revealed" religions of God, but then can't name the authoritative "revealed" texts of Hinduism and Buddhism. So after "investigating", I've got the feeling that Baha'is really don't believe any of the other religions as true... that is as believed and practiced today. Which, then leads me to wonder, when did any of those religions really ever have the "truth"? That is compared to what the Baha'i Faith says is the truth.

So there is debating and then there is discussing and looking for sensible, reasonable answers. If a person, in this case the Baha'i, doesn't have reasonable answers, then people are going to challenge those answers. And that's what been going on and what appears to be debating. But who's at fault? The people asking for proof and evidence of claims made by certain Baha'is or the Baha'i who can't answer those questions without making it into a back and forth argument?

Things like saying that there is proof and their is evidence, but saying their is no proof or objective evidence. Saying there is a God and the messenger of God is proof and evidence that there is a God. And the proof for the messenger is himself, his mission and his writings? Answers like that are going to get people to argue/debate the things that Baha'i keeps saying. And it gets nowhere. So is there a better way to tell people what Baha'is believe and why? "Why" will always be the difficult one.

What can a Baha'i say? If they say they have proof, then they'll be asked where is the proof. If they say that there is no objective evidence or proof and they take it on faith, they get asked, "Then you really don't know for sure." And I don't think those people are being unreasonable. Given what religious people say and do, why should they be trusted? And, unfortunately, some Baha'is come off as being untrustworthy. All that most people want from a Baha'i is honest answers.

 

[CG Didymus]

Buddhism has some offshoots. But I am Theravada which is the original, non-theistic version. It is not really about beliefs about a supernatural.

The Baha'i Faith does attempt to bring all people and all religions together as one big happy family. Sounds wonderful. Naturally, they have a God-based governmental system to run things. But, part of what they claim, is that all the major religions had one of these "manifestations" of God that revealed the religion. They say Buddha was one of them.

But then you say Theravada Buddhism is non-theistic? Also, what are your beliefs about reincarnation? Then, is it possible, by following the teachings of Buddha, for others to gain Buddhahood and be enlightened? Oh, and then, in Theravada Buddhism are there prophecies of Buddha returning?

I ask because the Baha'is say "originally" Buddha did teach about a God, and not just any God, but the same one the Abrahamic religions believe in. Then Baha'is say that a soul doesn't return into a new and different body. Then, if Buddha was a "manifestation", then others could never attain what he had. And then, Baha'is say that their prophet is the promised return of Buddha. And there are some prophecies about the "Maitreya" Buddha. Is that part of Theravada beliefs, and if not, then do Theravada Buddhists believe that Buddha will return? Thanks.

 

[CG Didymus]

you had a spiritual experience because of it that you interpreted as evidence of the divine.

Back in the 70's when I was young lots of people were searching and finding all sorts of truths. I "experienced" God or the divine three different times... believing three different things. All of them depended on a complete letting go and believing that the spiritual world was real. Was it? Did it matter what I believed as long as I totally believed?

Then comes the cognitive dissonating. The new age kind of beliefs I held were negated by the "Truth" of what my Baha'i friends told me. I was around good people out to bring peace and love to the world. I felt the power and love of God. Then, a friend "found" Jesus. That was in the middle of the Jesus movement. What I learned from those born-again Christians negated what my Baha'is friends were telling me. And, at last, I found the real truth, Jesus. But then, I had to believe in creation, the flood, the tower of Babel, and, unlike the new agers and the Baha'is, I had to believe all other religions were wrong and even lots of Christian groups. I couldn't do it. And once I stopped completely believing, the feeling, that love, the power of knowing that I had The Truth... was gone.

And then friends in all those religions starting falling too. The worst were some of my Christian friends. They went from being high on Jesus to being high on whatever they could smoke, drink or snort. Plus, shacking up with their girl friends. Not all fell that hard, but I could see how the ones that stayed kind of fell into a "nominal" state of belief. Baha'is and Christians that just go to a few meetings and call that good. Then I hope that Baha'is can avoid this, but there's always some people that start a "Christian" ministry that is all for show... and boy, do they put on a show.

So great, and totally awesome that some people apply their beliefs in a way to help and serve others. But that doesn't mean any particular one of their religions or sects of some religion are true. Those people are living a truth that they learned and got from their religion, but most all religions teach to do good and devote your life to serving and helping others. And that might be the real truth, and all those other things about Gods and devils and prophets might all be just made up stuff to get people to do good.

 

[PureX]

Whenever I eat Brussels sprouts, I have a bad taste experience. That's evidence, and allows me to make future decisions that avoid that unpleasant experience. And if you tell me that they taste good to you, I will assume that you are probably telling me the truth.

Thus, 'the truth' of the taste of Brussels sprouts is paradoxical. I just want to point this out. Because many 'truths' are paradoxical, though usually for more sophisticated reasons. And so for us to gain 'knowledge' of such truths requires that we experience and understand those truths from many different perspectives, and from subjective and objective points of reference, alike.

For example; the 'truth of God' is not going to be found in one single religion's God-ideal, but in a consortium of all of them, and all the non-religious one's too.

I defer to my own judgment, as do you. I only defer to the judgment of others in areas where I think they know more, and understanding one's own mind is not one of those.

So you automatically presume that your judgment is better than anyone else's where you are concerned? I understand. But is it ? You also accept your own subjective evidence as evidence while you reject anyone else's. Well, not anyone else's. Just those who's subjective evidence contradicts your own. So again, we see this bias in favor of you. A bias that isn't exactly logically defensible, and could be quite wrong. Right?

I'm just saying ... this is why we have to reign in our egos. Because if we don't they will automatically take over and our egos don't care about logic or reason or right or wrong. They exist to maintain our delusion of self-righteousness, only.

I explained to you after defining the term that I don't 'believe in' anything - belief by faith, as in a god. But I do believe many things that have passed an empirical test for believability, I believe them tentatively and only to the degree that the quantity and quality of relevant evidence supports, always willing to revise my estimate of the likelihood of truth as new relevant evidence is uncovered.

It appears to me that you "believe in" empiricism unequivocably. You say it's not unequivocal, but then you repeat it is your prime criteria. And yet empiricism is just one of a number of methods we humans have available to us to try and determine the truth of things. Why such a heavy bias in favor of just this one? That in itself does not seem reasonable. Though it certainly explains your resistance to evidence based on any of those other methods of determination.

And yes, 'believing in' is a mistake.

AMEN, Brother! Finally we can at least agree on this. Except, wait, don't you still "believe in" empirical evidence as the only valid means of determining the truth of things?

If by Holy Spirit you mean the Christian concept - it often turns out after thousands of characters of communication that you had a private definition in mind that you hadn't yet articulated - then yes, if you claim that belief in the Christian God resulted in you being infused with a benevolent, wise aspect of a deity that guides you, then no, I don't believe that that happens. Why should I? I tested the claim once, remember?

The Christians don't own the concept and neither do I (or you). That's the interesting thing about the truth: it's paradoxical, AND universal. The Christians have their experience and ideas of it, I have my experience and idea of it, and so do you and a whole lot of other people, religious and otherwise. So the truth of the "holy spirit", whatever we humans can know of it, will best be understood through ALL these various experiences and ideas, combined.

I am not religious. Although I accept some ethical ideals from Christianity, I am very clearly not a religious Christian. I am also a Taoist, but very clearly not a religious Taoist of any sort. I am also a profoundly agnostic theist. The reason I can be and not be a Christian, and a Taoist, and an agnostic theist all at the same time is because the truth is bigger than any of these avenues of understanding. The truth is present within them all. So I'm just adopting those means that I find to help illuminate the truth, to me.

This is why I'm not interested in the "battle of beliefs" that so often ensue on these threads. I'm not the least bit interested in changing anyone's mind about anything. I am, however, interested in expanding my own, and everyone else's grasp of 'the truth of things' to whatever degree I am able. That means exploding biases and seeking out special experiences, not denying biases and rejecting special experiences. We humans don't ever really get to know the truth, and know that we know it. Really, the best we can get is relative truthfulness within our immediate circumstances ... and relative functionality (not to be confused with truth). And we all are all equally 'in' and 'out' of the truth loop. So we need to share what little we can get of it, and stay as open to the possibilities as we can be. Empiricism and logic are great tools, but they are not our only tools, and they have their limits. Serious limits. All the more-so when we "believe in" them to the exclusion of the other tools available.

One of the chief reasons I left the religion was its failure to deliver on its promises.

You and a million other people. Let's investigate the why's ...

1. The promises were lies.
2. The promises were misrepresented and/or misunderstood.
3. The promises involved requirements that were not met.
4. The promises have simply not been delivered yet.
5. God does not make promises (even if religions do).
6. Promises don't always align with our wishes. (And so even when delivered, may not appear so to us.)
7. Promises from people are often broken. (We try, but we often fail.) Should we have expected otherwise?
8. People making promises for God to keep is a recipe for disappointment.

These are just a few reasons I can think of for the 'breach of promise' to have occurred. And none of them appear to me to be 'God's fault'. They all seem to be the fault of religion, and particularly of the fact that religions are made up of and operated by fallible humans.

 

[PureX]

continued ...

When I entered the religion, I was already about eighteen and had been to university before dropping out and enlisting in the military, so I had some critical thinking skills. I understood that to test the claims of the religion, I needed to suspend disbelief, and just try the religion on like a pair of shoes and see if with time, it doesn't fit me better, that is, the cognitive dissonance normally created by being offered such ideas was put on hold. I explained how discharge and relocation allowed me to see that the experience I had been interpreting as the presence of the Holy Spirit was just the experience of euphoria caused by a gifted and charismatic preacher. And then I understood that I had been interpreting a psychological state improperly.

I like the way your mind works, here!

So how do you think I ought to understand anybody else's claim like yours above? I understand your AA experience in the same way I do my own military experience. You joined a group like I did, you experienced welcoming and a sense of community, and you had a spiritual experience because of it that you interpreted as evidence of the divine. That was my story, too. Yours is different because you got something of lasting value, something you needed - sobriety. Congratulations for that. And if you're like many or most other friends of Bill W., you understand that in religious terms.

But I've found that gods don't add anything to the mix for me.

I understand, but I am sure you can see that this depends on how you define "the gods" for yourself. And that's the key: to define the gods FOR YOURSELF and not let other people do it for you. You are far too intelligent to be letting other people, who aren't as intelligent or creative as you are, be defining what God is or is not, for you. And that's why you have not found God in your reality. For God to become real, you have to find it in your experience of reality. For me, it was in the hearts and minds and spirits of those people in those AA meetings (at first). All those broken humans helping each other to heal, by sharing their pain, AND their courage in the face of it, with each other. That was "divine" by any definition I could ever ascribe the that word. It transcended the mechanics of our collective physical reality, and it genuinely healed people ... people who were hopeless drunks all their lives; like a miracle. I didn't get religion in AA. I'm still not religious. But I did find the reality behind a lot of those religious words and phrases; like "God is love" and "forgiveness heals" and "divine redemption" and "miracles happen" and "faith works" and so on. I am no longer bothered by or resentful toward those kinds of terms because I know they're true meaning, as opposed to the many silly promises and threats and nonsense that various religionists I've encountered over the years have applied to them.

I do concede, however, that here on RF it's difficult for anyone else to know that when I use those words, I don't mean them quite the same way as they are used to hearing them from being used by religionists. But I can't really help that. They ARE the right words for what I mean, so I use them. Even if differently from the others. (It's why I over-use and often misuse quotations and parentheses so much.)

I've been able to do the things religion claims to do without it. For example, I still have spiritual experiences like the one I described to you on the barracks stairs, when suddenly I felt God telling me to marry the woman I was with. I felt of frisson pass over me, and understood that to be a sign from God. Today, when I get that same experience, I understand it as a reaction of my mind to nature, one that leaves me with a sense of mystery, awe, connectivity, and gratitude just I had in church, but today I explain that in psychological language, not theological. The universe is enough for me even if godless.

Most people would have no problem applying the term "God" to exactly that phenomenological experience. Why do you resist that? Seems like the right word for it, to me. (Although, if you tell me you prefer to keep the experience un-defined, and un-labelled, I am 100% on your side in that! Even when I use the term "God", I am always aware that it's an applied label to an idea and experience that is beyond the power of language to define.)

Life remains a mystery, as does consciousness. Others who have these thoughts see a god as the answer. I have learned to leave unanswerable questions unanswered rather than guessing. Am I sensing a great consciousness out there? Maybe, but I have no reason to conclude so.

Keep in mind that you and I are "out there", too. Its all of a whole. We exist, and we are conscious, so existence IS conscious. If the universe is the "physical body of God" (just for the sake of argument), then our minds and hearts are part of the mind and heart of God. A lot of religious ideology would agree with this even it couches it in very archaic and superstitious language. I personally think one of the biggest problems with religion is that it so reluctant to let go of it's archaic words and images and adopt more concise and recognizable alternatives. It drives people away, like wanting to pass on by a graveyard.

And I've settled on a moral code that is compatible with reason, empathy, and benevolence without a holy book, one that is actually much more suited to 21st century life than any holy books moral code. Look at these threads, and the secular humanists posting on them. Without exception, they are well-educated, proficient critical thinkers, and morally upright.

These are the people I identify with. That's who I wanted to be and think I have become since leaving a faith-based worldview. They're smart, sensible and decent.

I understand. My "people" are the artists. They have been my entire adult life. But the truth is bigger than art. And so I have to concede that plenty of non-artists have a lot to offer me in terms of grasping the truth of things. Like you, I am not religion, and yet here, too, I have to concede that religious people have a lot to offer me in terms of understanding the truth of things. They aren't bad, or crazy, or stupid, or whatever, they are simply experiencing and understanding the truth of things from a different perspective than I am. And if I can set my bias against their perspective aside, I can maybe glimpse that truth from their perspective, and thereby expand my own.

My enemy isn't religion, it's bias. My enemy isn't politics, it's dishonesty. My enemy isn't wealth, it's greed. My enemy isn't hate, it's disinterest in the face of hate. My enemy isn't confusion, it's willful ignorance. And so on. Clarity matters.

It was both. It was my mistake to believe by faith and make an important decision that way. Had I gotten lucky and married well, I might still wonder whether I did receive some kind of external guidance. But I didn't. The marriage ended in divorce. She was still a believer, and saw me as a backslidden captive of Satan, causing her to want to keep me away from our young daughters, and to teach them that I was an immoral person to steer clear of. That's my mistake, and it was a lesson in the folly of faith-based thinking and decision making.

I am sorry that happened to you. I lost a relationship on similar grounds, but not a marriage. And I wasn't relying on divine signs or anything. But it still hurt. She had all the Christian talk, but not the wisdom of it's meaning. I had some of the wisdom, but didn't associate it with the talk. So I couldn't speak the special code words. Whatever. I wish her the best, sincerely. That was a long time ago.

Again, I don't know what you mean by a real oracle or divine magic, especially when you put them each in quotes, but don't have any reason to believe in oracles, divinity, or magic.

I see the divine within the natural. I see that within the nature of reality, there is also a divine, transcendent realm of being. The realm of forgiveness. Of kindness. Of generosity and of love. They are more than just manifestations of the mechanisms of nature. They transcend nature. And through them "magic" occurs. The magic of the spirit, and of spiritual healing. I see these phenomena as transcendent because the natural realm by itself has no meaning or purpose without these. These are why existence, exists (apparently).

 

[PureX]

Back in the 70's when I was young lots of people were searching and finding all sorts of truths. I "experienced" God or the divine three different times... believing three different things. All of them depended on a complete letting go and believing that the spiritual world was real. Was it? Did it matter what I believed as long as I totally believed?

Then comes the cognitive dissonating. The new age kind of beliefs I held were negated by the "Truth" of what my Baha'i friends told me. I was around good people out to bring peace and love to the world. I felt the power and love of God. Then, a friend "found" Jesus. That was in the middle of the Jesus movement. What I learned from those born-again Christians negated what my Baha'is friends were telling me. And, at last, I found the real truth, Jesus. But then, I had to believe in creation, the flood, the tower of Babel, and, unlike the new agers and the Baha'is, I had to believe all other religions were wrong and even lots of Christian groups. I couldn't do it. And once I stopped completely believing, the feeling, that love, the power of knowing that I had The Truth... was gone.

And then friends in all those religions starting falling too. The worst were some of my Christian friends. They went from being high on Jesus to being high on whatever they could smoke, drink or snort. Plus, shacking up with their girl friends. Not all fell that hard, but I could see how the ones that stayed kind of fell into a "nominal" state of belief. Baha'is and Christians that just go to a few meetings and call that good. Then I hope that Baha'is can avoid this, but there's always some people that start a "Christian" ministry that is all for show... and boy, do they put on a show.

So great, and totally awesome that some people apply their beliefs in a way to help and serve others. But that doesn't mean any particular one of their religions or sects of some religion are true. Those people are living a truth that they learned and got from their religion, but most all religions teach to do good and devote your life to serving and helping others. And that might be the real truth, and all those other things about Gods and devils and prophets might all be just made up stuff to get people to do good.

This is a wonderful post! Thank you.

To me, the lesson here is that if we want to find the "truth of God", we have to look for it in the truth of life. In the suffering, and confusion, and blindness that we live in. And in what raises us up and out of it. No preacher can preach this into our reality. No mythical stories can imagine it into being. No set of rules can make it happen for us. We have to act on our best hopes, and our kindest inclinations, and trust that doing that will raise up someone, if not ourselves. Faith is the only way. Not religion. But real faith: in our highest ideals and our best impulses, for the betterment of everyone.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you automatically presume that your judgment is better than anyone else's where you are concerned? I understand. But is it ?

I have to go by results. I'm satisfied with the results of having trusted my judgment since making the change in how I decide what is true. And that judgment includes knowing when to defer to the judgment of others and when not to.

Just for fun, here's a humorous clip of a guy who had the opposite experience in life. He believes that his judgment is terrible, because things always work out badly for him, and so he decides to do the opposite of whatever his judgment instructs him to do. Right off the bat, he meets a beautiful woman by going against his instincts. The part relevant to this discussion ends at about 2:44:

You also accept your own subjective evidence as evidence while you reject anyone else's. Well, not anyone else's. Just those who's subjective evidence contradicts your own.

I tend to trust my judgment as I've just explained. And I think I have good reason to do so. I'm satisfied with the results. If I had had the results of the guy in the video, I might have cause to go to others for advice on basic life decisions.

we see this bias in favor of you. A bias that isn't exactly logically defensible, and could be quite wrong. Right?

What bias? Trusting my own judgment? I consider the reason I gave you for that logical.

Many people use the word bias to imply an error of thought. For me, that's only irrational biases, such as superstitions and bigotry. Biases grounded in understanding experience are rational biases, and they are quite desirable if accurate. It's really another name for learning. I try each of two restaurants a couple of times and learn empirically that I'll likely have a better experience at one than the other if there is a noticeable difference between them, whether that be food, service, ambiance, prices, or some combination of these. That's a bias in favor of one over the other, it is rational, and it is useful information in the sense that it empowers me to make decisions with better outcomes more often.

It appears to me that you "believe in" empiricism unequivocably. You say it's not unequivocal, but then you repeat it is your prime criteria.

I've told you that I define believing in as believing by faith. What I do is believe based on evidence, not believe in. On that basis, I might believe that restaurant A will meet my needs better than restaurant B. I believe restaurant A is better. I do not believe in it.

I do consider empiricism the only path to reliable knowledge about how the world works and what I can expect the result of various choices I might make to be.

And yet empiricism is just one of a number of methods we humans have available to us to try and determine the truth of things. Why such a heavy bias in favor of just this one? That in itself does not seem reasonable. Though it certainly explains your resistance to evidence based on any of those other methods of determination.

My answer is the same. It works. Other methods haven't.

I'm not aware of any other method that can produce useful information. Nor any other method of coming to belief except faith, or insufficiently justified belief. To the extent that the evidence supports one's belief, it is a rational belief. Any more than that becomes faith.

And I don't understand what you mean about other methods of determination that use evidence to arrive at useful conclusions. You didn't say useful, but I wouldn't be interested in any other kind, and I know no other way to arrive at them than empirically. I suppose we could say that astrologers use evidence - the positions of the stars and planets - but not properly. Their beliefs are faith-based, and the way they go from evidence to conclusions is neither rational nor useful.

I am very clearly not a religious Christian

I take people at their word in these matters. if you say so, I have no cause to disagree.

I'm not the least bit interested in changing anyone's mind about anything.

I am. It's what I did professionally in clinical medicine. It's what I have tried to do in these threads regarding vaccine refusal. It's what I did on another thread where somebody offered opinions about refugees that I thought should be different. It's what I do with my bridge partner when I want to modify the way we approach a particular situation.

Empiricism and logic are great tools, but they are not our only tools, and they have their limits. Serious limits. All the more-so when we "believe in" them to the exclusion of the other tools available.

As I mentioned earlier, I keep seeing this claim in one form or another - that there are other ways to obtain useful information about reality. And I have asked repeatedly for an example of something derived without them, nobody offers one, and I know of no such example myself either from my own experience or that reported by others. So I have no reason to accept the claim.

I do concede, however, that here on RF it's difficult for anyone else to know that when I use those words, I don't mean them quite the same way as they are used to hearing them from being used by religionists. But I can't really help that. They ARE the right words for what I mean, so I use them. Even if differently from the others. (It's why I over-use and often misuse quotations and parentheses so much.)

It's been a problem for me exchanging posts with you that you prefer not to state clearly what you mean by various terms. I still don't know what you mean by God, but you know what I mean (a conscious agent capable of creating a universe). I still don't know what you mean by believing in, but you know what I mean when I use the term (unjustified belief, distinct from believing). I'm still not clear on what your definition of an atheist is, but you know mine very clearly (anybody that does not hold a god belief). I'm not clear on what you mean by oracle or holy spirit. Maybe it's the common meaning, maybe not.

Most people would have no problem applying the term "God" to exactly that phenomenological experience. Why do you resist that? Seems like the right word for it, to me.

The word connotes something to many people that I don't mean. I've mentioned the confusion Einstein caused using the word to mean the laws of nature.

I have to concede that religious people have a lot to offer me in terms of understanding the truth of things

I'd be curious to know what those things are and how they helped you. Religious ideas simply haven't been helpful to me. I discussed this today on another thread, the bottom part of this one: Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

 

[Trailblazer]

As I said previously, none of these points are evidence that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God (and your God specifically).

They are definitely evidence although they are not proof. All we can have is evidence, we can never prove that a man was a Messenger of God.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. ‘
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Someone can have good character, complete an important mission and produce meaningful writings (in at least someone's opinion) without actually being a Messenger of God. Loads of people could be said to have met this criteria, some claimed to be associated with different divine sources and some not associated with anything divine at all.

That's true, someone can have good character, complete an important mission and produce meaningful writings (in at least someone's opinion) without actually being a Messenger of God, and that is why we need additional criteria in order to determine if a man was actually a Messenger of God or not. It is possible to determine that to one's own satisfaction even though we can never prove it as a fact that everyone will believe.

Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate most claimants, since they will fail to meet all the 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.

Fulfilling prophecies after the fact isn't especially difficult and, as is pretty much always the case with prophecy, is full of fuzzy definitions, questionable interpretations and selective reading. Even then, that wouldn't be direct evidence that he was a Messenger of God.

Future predictions are similar, open to interpretation and selection bias. And again, the ability to predict the future wouldn't be in itself evidence that he was a Messenger of God.

Again, fulfillment of prophecies and future predictions are part of the evidence but they are not proof, and they are not the best kind of evidence because the meanings of prophecies can be easily misconstrued. Moreover some people can accurately predict the future but that does not make them a Messengers of God.

The only reason you say these things are evidence that he was a Messenger of God is because he said they were evidence for that. Without that claim, there is no reason to assume all these things are the work of your specific God rather than any of the literally infinite range of other possibilities, mundane, magical or divine.

No, the reason I say it is evidence is because it is logical. I had been saying that for years, long before I ever read what Baha'u'llah wrote about evidence. What He wrote just confirmed what I had already figured out.

I do not expect anyone else to believe that what Baha'u'llah did and wrote is the work of God just because I believe it. We all view things very differently.

What is that even meant to mean? You're basically trying to make up entirely fictional and fraudulent rules of logic. If you can't prove it, you can't prove it. Claiming you have proof but that it can't be demonstrated to anyone else is just a lie. If you keep lying to us (and yourself), you will quickly loose any respect anyone here has for you.

Why are you bringing logic into this discussion? Logic does not apply to religious beliefs because they can never be proven to be either true or false.

If I cannot prove my belief is true (to anyone except myself) that does not mean jack squat. It certainly does not prove my belief is false, nor does it prove that my belief is true. It only means one thing -- religious beliefs are not subject to proof because neither God nor anything God allegedly did is subject to proof.

That is why religious beliefs are called beliefs and not considered facts.

"Claiming you have proof but that it can't be demonstrated to anyone else is just a lie"

I did not say "I have proof." I said that I have proven it is true to myself, and I did that by looking at the evidence. Do you understand the difference between proving something and proving something to oneself?

It is completely illogical to think that I would have the power to demonstrate that what I believe is true to other people. My inability to demonstrate that is because I cannot make other people think the way I think and see what I see, but that does not mean that what I believe is not true. It could be either true or false but it is not my job to prove that what I believe is true to anyone else except myself because I am only responsible to God for myself and what I believe.

If you could just own your faith and accept that lots of other people simply don't share it we'd both be happier. Of course, that would also make it harder for you to proselytise and try to spread your religion.

Of course I do not expect anyone else to believe what I believe. Show me one post that indicates that I have ANY such expectation.

If people would just leave me alone and stop talking about my religion and asking me why I believe it I would be a lot happier. I respond to posts because people post to me. What am I supposed to do, lie and say I believe in the tooth fairy? Leave me alone and I will leave you alone, I guarantee it. The very last thing I want to do is talk about what I believe or why I believe it. Did you see what I said 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?​

That was not an invitation to talk about what I believe, it was me trying to solicit what atheists think about what would be evidence for God, since atheists do not accept Messengers as evidence.

To accuse me of proselytizing is totally unjust because it is the people on this forum who continually prod me and ask me about my beliefs and why I believe them. I have no interest in talking about my beliefs. I just answer people because I feel obligated and I am trying to be polite.

I thought you were a cut above some of the atheists on this forum but I am now sorely disappointed.

 

[F1fan]

The Baha'i Faith does attempt to bring all people and all religions together as one big happy family. Sounds wonderful.

It's not practical or realistic given the he diversity of beliefs, and how they are cultural. Vedanta aims for the same thing. Heck, there's conflict in Christianity and Islam alone, and even they can't unify. One practical option is LESS emphasis on religion in cultures.

Naturally, they have a God-based governmental system to run things. But, part of what they claim, is that all the major religions had one of these "manifestations" of God that revealed the religion. They say Buddha was one of them.

My concern who is the middlemen for the absent God? It would be one thing if an actual God showed up and set policy, but that's never happened, it's always mortals in religious power using God as window dressing to extend authority and power. There will be many atheists and theists asking questions to anyone claiming to represent God on earth.

But then you say Theravada Buddhism is non-theistic?

Yup, there is no references to gods.

Also, what are your beliefs about reincarnation?

I'm not convinced it's a real phenomenon. Do note that many things in Eastern theology are symbolic in ways that aren't comparable to Western theology. People from Western traditions try to interpret Eastern ideas in a more literal way and it skews the meanings.

Then, is it possible, by following the teachings of Buddha, for others to gain Buddhahood and be enlightened?

I don't know what Buddahood is. Enlightenment is a state that is difficult to achieve, and it is temporary. Enlightenment isn't like reaching the new level in a video game.

Oh, and then, in Theravada Buddhism are there prophecies of Buddha returning?

Not that I'm aware of. Siddartha was an ordinary person and never claimed any special status. Perhaps your reference has to do with how others can be Buddhist. Perhaps you mean the process of what becomes the next Dalia Lama.

I ask because the Baha'is say "originally" Buddha did teach about a God, and not just any God, but the same one the Abrahamic religions believe in.

That is likely bogus because Siddatha came from a Hindu tradition and that religion believes in many gods. Siddartha didn't really refer to the gods in his teachings. There are specific gods that do certain things, like created the universe, that sustain the universe, that represent happiness, etc. If Baha'is claimed this it's likely a misunderstanding as i noted before. It's a bad error on their part.

Then Baha'is say that a soul doesn't return into a new and different body. Then, if Buddha was a "manifestation", then others could never attain what he had. And then, Baha'is say that their prophet is the promised return of Buddha. And there are some prophecies about the "Maitreya" Buddha. Is that part of Theravada beliefs, and if not, then do Theravada Buddhists believe that Buddha will return? Thanks.

I'd be wary of anyone claiming prophesy. The question is: why would a person at peace need or want to believe in prophecies?

 

[F1fan]

They are definitely evidence although they are not proof. All we can have is evidence, we can never prove that a man was a Messenger of God.

And that is why rational minds don't believe.

 

[F1fan]

That's true, someone can have good character, complete an important mission and produce meaningful writings (in at least someone's opinion) without actually being a Messenger of God, and that is why we need additional criteria in order to determine if a man was actually a Messenger of God or not. It is possible to determine that to one's own satisfaction even though we can never prove it as a fact that everyone will believe.

Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate most claimants, since they will fail to meet all the 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.

This could be Jim Jones. Or any other crackpot. You offer no test in reality for the claims the person makes. None of this makes any effort to discern whether this person has any actual contact with a god, and it is this big fault that would disqualify this person by more critical minds.

Why are you bringing logic into this discussion? Logic does not apply to religious beliefs because they can never be proven to be either true or false.

Then why did you bring up evidence?

In a claim, or argument, or logic, you make your case using evidence. But if logic and reasoning (which relies on logic) doesn't apply, then how does a person make a decision that this person is a messenger? The only other option is an emotional decision, and those are notoriously unreliable.

 

[F1fan]

I don't know any true Christian who hasn't got peace of mind. I mean, what have they got to worry about?..
Christianity tells us how to achieve the correct state of mind to "lock on" or "mindmeld" with Jesus, so that when we die our souls fly to him like guided missiles and absorb into him and God instead of veering off into the void-
Jesus said- "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you" (John 14:20)

So you're not a true Christian? You are very upset about immigrants.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm pretty sure that if theists didn't mention God, neither would atheists.

If that was true, it would be only the theists who start threads about God on this forum, but that is not what I see.

Moreover, atheists are talking about the God they do not believe in all the time. I have to wonder why atheists talk so much about a nonexistent entity, aside from the fact that they like to challenge theists. I would never waste my precious time talking about something I did not believe existed. If I did not believe that God existed I would be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere, not on a religious forum.

So the only reason I can think of as to why there are so many atheists on a religious forum is either (a) or (b):

(a) They want to know if God exists, or (b) They want to prove that theists are wrong and God does not exist.

I wish for their sake it was (a) but I see no evidence of (a) so I have ti conclude that it is (b).
I just do not understand why anyone would waste their time trying to prove someone else is wrong, aside from ego.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I've settled on a moral code that is compatible with reason, empathy, and benevolence without a holy book, one that is actually much more suited to 21st century life than any holy books moral code. Look at these threads, and the secular humanists posting on them. Without exception, they are well-educated, proficient critical thinkers, and morally upright.

I agree that secular humanists are as you describe them as I have told you in the past, but I still stand my ground in saying that the Baha'i Faith moral code is compatible with reason, empathy, and benevolence. The only difference is that we have a God belief and a holy book, but so what?

A few years ago before I ever came to this forum there was a secular humanist on my forum who was interested in the Baha'i Faith, less the God, and he even put up a lot of information about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith on his own website. He was very old at that time, in his 90s, so he has probably passed on by now, Nelson was his name.

I guess my point is that theists and atheists do not have to always be at odds with each other and my second point is that all religions are not the same and they are not all like Christianity.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what your metaphor means is that some interpret religious beliefs with bias, especially when they are theists and have a position, their identity, their fervor, etc. to defend. The more critical and skilled thinker can assess religious ideas and understand the lack of underlying facts, and that to believe these ideas requires many assumptions, like a supernatural existing, and a God existing, and any number of related concepts that have no evidence. These ideas are seldom even plausible given what we do know of reality.

I said “We are all looking with different eyes (different minds) and that is why some see it and some don’t see it.”

That does not imply a bias, it means what it says – all humans think differently

But if you want to hold this position then it is also true that atheists have their identity, their fervor, etc. to defend. The more critical and skilled theist can assess atheists ideas and understand the lack of underlying facts, and that to believe these ideas requires many assumptions, like no God existing, and any number of related concepts that have no evidence.

So the reasons why theists believe should account for the unwarranted and unsupportable assumptions made that are necessary to believe and be confident. You didn't do that. You just stated the obvious: that different people see religious belief in a different way.

So the reasons why atheists believe should account for the unwarranted and unsupportable assumptions made that are necessary to believe and be confident.

So it is disingenuous to say critical thinkers don't give theists a chance to make their cases. There is every chance given. It's just that the arguments require assumptions that violate the rules of logic.

Rules of logic do not apply to religious beliefs since religious beliefs can never be proven true or false. That is why they are called beliefs and not considered facts.

There are NO facts of a supernatural. NO facts of gods existing outside of human imagination. NO arguments that rest solely on facts and evidence that can be verified by an objective mind.

When did I ever say there were facts of the supernatural or God existing? However, logically speaking that does not prove that the supernatural and God do not exist, it just mean they cannot be proven to exist as a FACT.

Proof is not what makes anything exist. Reality simply exists. The only reason people want proof is to know what reality is. I believe there is a physical reality and a spiritual reality but logically speaking the spiritual world cannot be proven from the physical world because it cannot be seen from this world.

We won't assume there is a lamp in the other room, we will want you to show us.

Why should I show you? It is not my job to do other people’s homework. Even if I tried to show you it would be futile because you will never see what I see because as I said before, we are all looking with different eyes (different minds) and that is why some see it and some don’t see it.

You've had ample time to present evidence that is of high quality and acceptable to critical minds, and that don't require interpretation. You've fallen short. Your weak case is not our collective problem.

I have presented the evidence. The fact that it is insufficient for you is not a problem for me because I already know God exists and I know what I am able to know about God and God's Will for me.

Then why are you arguing for it? Why are you pretending to have knowledge? Why do you insist we critical thinkers are to blame for not coming to a rational conclusion WHEN you clearly state it can't be proven?

I never did any of that. I just respond to posts. I am not ‘pretending’ to have knowledge and I never insisted that others are to blame for anything. Show me where you think l said any of that.

To say "proven to ourselves" implies confirmation bias. It suggests some other reason to believe that isn't fact, evidence, and logic.

To say "proven to ourselves" does not imply confirmation bias at all. I proved it to myself by looking at the evidence, and I did not search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms my preexisting beliefs because I had no preexisting beliefs before I became a Baha’i.

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[1]It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

The most likely thing going on here is that you hold beliefs that are important to your identity and you are seeking validation from others, or resistance from others that you can use as a sort of pressure to believe that much harder, because we are heathen infidels, doomed to some fate of spiritual death.

Nothing could be further from the truth, NOTHING. I suggest you stop trying to psychoanalyze me because you are so far off base. I need no validation from anyone. I am 100% certain that my beliefs are true, so why would I need validation? I do not need to believe any harder than 100%.

I could be wrong but what I see is as the most likely thing going on here is that you hold non-beliefs that are important to your identity and you are seeking validation from other atheists. I say that because you keep referring to other “critical thinkers” that validate your opinions that I am wrong and you are right. When did I refer to other Baha’is and say that the fact that they agree with me means I am right?

 

[Trailblazer]

And that is why rational minds don't believe.

Rational minds would know that there can never be proof of God's existence so they would never expect proof.

 

[CG Didymus]

It's not practical or realistic given the he diversity of beliefs, and how they are cultural. Vedanta aims for the same thing. Heck, there's conflict in Christianity and Islam alone, and even they can't unify. One practical option is LESS emphasis on religion in cultures.

Yes, lots of people seem to get along much better with little or no religion.

And thanks for the information on Theravada Buddhism. Baha'is miss on a couple of points. Their claim that Buddha did teach about the one "true" God, the one they believe in. And also when they say Buddha was a manifestation of God. They do, however, say that reincarnation is symbolic. If they are The Truth, then they shouldn't have any misses. And, of course, they don't believe they do have any misses. They believe that the Baha'i Faith is right on everything.

Oh, and the prophecy thing, which ever Buddhist sect they get the Maitreya prophecies from don't fit all that well. But they make them fit anyway. But then, are they even real prophecies? Unless they came from Buddha why would they believe them to be legitimate prophecies? And then go to all the trouble to interpret them in a way to make their prophet the fulfillment of those prophecies? So lots of good stuff in the Baha'i teachings, but, because it is a religion, followers are expected to believe all of it. Like what they say about the other religions, and what they say about God and who they say is his latest messenger, Baha'u'llah.

 

[CG Didymus]

If that was true, it would be only the theists who start threads about God on this forum, but that is not what I see.

Moreover, atheists are talking about the God they do not believe in all the time. I have to wonder why atheists talk so much about a nonexistent entity, aside from the fact that they like to challenge theists. I would never waste my precious time talking about something I did not believe existed. If I did not believe that God existed I would be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere, not on a religious forum.

So the only reason I can think of as to why there are so many atheists on a religious forum is either (a) or (b):

(a) They want to know if God exists, or (b) They want to prove that theists are wrong and God does not exist.

I wish for their sake it was (a) but I see no evidence of (a) so I have ti conclude that it is (b).
I just do not understand why anyone would waste their time trying to prove someone else is wrong, aside from ego.

But still, you "know" that Jesus is not God? What was it? Because God can't become a man? And you know that for a fact? Or, is it based on your Baha'i beliefs and not on something that can be proven? Which would mean it is not a "fact" it's your opinion based on what your religion tells you that is true?

But if you are using logic and reason and lack of proof from Christians, then you're doing to the trinity belief of some Christians what Atheists are doing to your unprovable belief in your concept of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

This could be Jim Jones. Or any other crackpot.

No, it could not be Jim Jones or any other crackpot because they would not meet all the criteria I listed.

You offer no test in reality for the claims the person makes. None of this makes any effort to discern whether this person has any actual contact with a god, and it is this big fault that would disqualify this person by more critical minds.

There is no test that would prove that a Messenger really heard from God because God did not want to make it that easy to verify the Messenger. God wanted to disqualify certain people who were not willing to do their homework and that is why the Messengers appeared just like ordinary men. This is not easy homework to do since it takes a lot of time to determine who is a actuality a Messenger of God, especially of one is starting from scratch.

Baha'u'llah explained why the Messengers are not obvious and easy to identify and I can explain what the following passage means if you want me to.

“That the Manifestations of Divine justice, the Day Springs of heavenly grace, have when they appeared amongst men always been destitute of all earthly dominion and shorn of the means of worldly ascendancy, should be attributed to this same principle of separation and distinction which animateth the Divine Purpose. Were the Eternal Essence to manifest all that is latent within Him, were He to shine in the plentitude of His glory, none would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. Nay, all created things would be so dazzled and thunderstruck by the evidences of His light as to be reduced to utter nothingness. How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 71-72

Then why did you bring up evidence?

Because people keep asking me what the evidence is.

In a claim, or argument, or logic, you make your case using evidence. But if logic and reasoning (which relies on logic) doesn't apply, then how does a person make a decision that this person is a messenger? The only other option is an emotional decision, and those are notoriously unreliable.

I said "Logic does not apply to religious beliefs because they can never be proven to be either true or false."

I never said that logic and reasoning (which relies on logic) doesn't apply. Logic and reasoning absolutely does apply since that is the only way to understand why God uses Messengers to communicate to humans, which is both logical and reasonable.

One should never hold a religious belief just because it appeals to them on an emotional level because beliefs based upon emotions are notoriously unreliable.

 

[F1fan]

I said “We are all looking with different eyes (different minds) and that is why some see it and some don’t see it.”

That does not imply a bias, it means what it says – all humans think differently

There are skilled thinkers and unskilled thinkers. Your posts indicate you are the latter.

Rules of logic do not apply to religious beliefs since religious beliefs can never be proven true or false. That is why they are called beliefs and not considered facts.

The rules of logic apply to any true claim. And the logical default for claims are that they are false, and must be demonstrated true. But yes, religious claims can't be demonstrated true, thus are rejected.

When did I ever say there were facts of the supernatural or God existing? However, logically speaking that does not prove that the supernatural and God do not exist, it just mean they cannot be proven to exist as a FACT.

You claimed to KNOW God exists numerous times.

Proof is not what makes anything exist. Reality simply exists. The only reason people want proof is to know what reality is. I believe there is a physical reality and a spiritual reality but logically speaking the spiritual world cannot be proven from the physical world because it cannot be seen from this world.

We don't care what you believe. We only care that you can provide sound and valid evidence for your religious claims, and provide a coherent argument.

Why should I show you? It is not my job to do other people’s homework. Even if I tried to show you it would be futile because you will never see what I see because as I said before, we are all looking with different eyes (different minds) and that is why some see it and some don’t see it.

It's you responsibility to present evidence for your claims. If you fail, then we reject your claims by default.

I have presented the evidence. The fact that it is insufficient for you is not a problem for me because I already know God exists and I know what I am able to know about God and God's Will for me.

We know your evidence is bad but good enough for you. You know your evidence isn't good enough for us. So why do you keep repeating this?

I never did any of that. I just respond to posts. I am not ‘pretending’ to have knowledge and I never insisted that others are to blame for anything. Show me where you think l said any of that.

Just above you said "I know what I am able to know about God and God's Will for me".

Yet you admit these religious beliefs can't be proven, so none of it can be knowledge.

To say "proven to ourselves" does not imply confirmation bias at all.

Sure it does. You admit your evidence is good enough for you while understanding it is weak for objective minds. The only way you could prove something and it NOT be confirmation bias is if your evidence convinces others too.

Nothing could be further from the truth, NOTHING. I suggest you stop trying to psychoanalyze me because you are so far off base. I need no validation from anyone. I am 100% certain that my beliefs are true, so why would I need validation? I do not need to believe any harder than 100%.

It's obvious you have a dependency on this posting you do. You repeat a lot of mistakes that have been exposed as mistakes.

I could be wrong but what I see is as the most likely thing going on here is that you hold non-beliefs that are important to your identity and you are seeking validation from other atheists. I say that because you keep referring to other “critical thinkers” that validate your opinions that I am wrong and you are right. When did I refer to other Baha’is and say that the fact that they agree with me means I am right?

See how you try to switch the focus onto atheists? There must be something you're trying to hide from.