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

[It Aint Necessarily So]

that is the very definition of 'confirmation bias'.

I defined both irrational bias and rational bias. A conformation bias is irrational. I also explained why rational biases were desirable. My purpose was to demonstrate the word bias by itself does not mean irrational bias or a logical error. And yes, I have accumulated thousands of biases empirically. It's the same thing as learning, and the collection of those biases an important part of my fund of knowledge. They're my mental map for navigating life, for making future choices based on past experience. I have a bias against faith-based thinking based in experience and later, reasoning. How can any method that allows one to believe wrong things as easily as correct ones be a path to truth. I have a bias for the method that generates demonstrably useful ideas.

What you "believe in" (refuse to doubt) is the validity of what you deem to be 'evidence'. You're trying to make it sound very 'objective', when it's really not. And I'm not trying to disparage the process. But I am trying to point out that it's prone to bias, error, and irrationality the same as anyone else's process is.

And you suggest adding more faith-based thinking to reduce irrational bias and error? Because that's all there is that's not empirical knowledge that can be and has been confirmed to be useful.

I've explained my criteria for calling an idea correct. It needs to help me achieve desired outcomes. There is no need to trouble oneself about concepts like objective reality, proof, and ultimate truth.

But restaurant A is not better "because it meets your needs". As your needs do not define the value of the restaurant. See how easily bias and irrationality crept into that process and caused a false conclusion? You are OK with the conclusion, because it serves you. But the conclusion is nevertheless false.

I just don't think like you. I don't understand what you mean about irrationality creeping in, value, or a false conclusion in this context. You seem to think I should use my mind in some other way than testing the world and developing rational biases such as which of two restaurants is more likely to give me the experience I want. Value is value to me in this context, so I do define it. A false conclusion is one that doesn't comport with reality. If I consistently have a better experience based on my conclusions, why would I call that false? Why do you?

Intuition, for example, is an exceptionally powerful tool available to we humans for determining the truth of things, and with reach that surpasses empiricism. Many of mankind's greatest advances have been the result of applying faith to intuition.

Intuition isn't a means for deciding what is true about the world. Empiricism is. Intuition is good source of creative ideas, and of course, logical axioms, but to claim to possess a fact, or to make a claim about what is real in the world, one needs to consult that world.

By "God" I mean the great mystery source, sustenance and purpose of all that is.

If that's all you mean, then why call it God? People will think you're talking about a conscious agent.

You might find this amusing. It's my invented "religion" based in the lyrics of the song Aiko. I give names to all of that without using the word God. The mystery is JOCKOMO, which may or may not be a conscious agent or god.

If you care to hear some of the lyrics, they start about 1 minute into this. You might want to look at the spoiler first to familiarize yourself with this language, probably mostly Cajun:

aiko grateful dead - Bing video

Spoiler: Aiko

AIKO – a system of nomenclature

This is a personal creation called AIKO*, which is meant to represent the gratitude that (this) one feels to be included in existence. The creation, FEENO, is a stunning and awesome thing, remarkable not only for its beauty, complexity and potential for beneficence, but remarkable just that it can and does exist and is apparent to us.

That anything at all exists is itself the most fundamental and awe-inspiring mystery (AYE-NA-NAY), one which is a continual source of awe (FIYO), and for which we are deeply grateful (FEE-NA-NAY). That existence should be as rich and robust as we find it is infinitely more remarkable. That we were included in it as conscious beings to experience it even more so, and that that conscious experience includes a faint intuition of divinity that is accompanied by an experience of mystery, of awe and of graitude.

To experience FEENO is the greatest gift. My gratitude that all of this is so is called AIKO, and it is expressed as an affinity for the creation FEENO, and by implication, its source JOCKOMO, whether that be person-like, purposeless and accidental forces, or any other ontogenic entity or entities.

Nothing can be said or known about the creative source of FEENO, an entity termed JOCKOMO. All that can be ascertained about the reality of JOCKOMO is that which is faintly intuited by the mystery faculty called SPYBOY (the faculty of the brain that intuitively produces the experience of mystery or divinity to us), and whatever little bit that the reasoning faculty can add to that.

JOCKOMO may be existent, may have been formerly existent, or something else altogether. It may be substantial (material) or transcendent. It may be plural or singular, finite or immortal, conscious or insentient; we cannot know. Whatever the case, we love it and identify with it through its creation, FEENO by which we intuit JOCKOMO faintly and indirectly.

We do not know if JOCKOMO knows us or can know us. It is not necessary. We are astounded and grateful nevertheless. We are indebted to JOCKOMO for being included in the creation FEENO and being blessed with the faculty of conscious mind, including SPYBOY that generates our intuition of the mysterious and divine, called AYE-NAH-NAY. The awe we feel is called FIYO, and the gratitude that results naturally from these is FEE-NAH-NAY.

By "believing" I mean presuming, without doubt, that one's idea of what is, IS what is.

OK. I include any idea that I consider likely correct. When the level of belief approaches certainty, I call the belief a fact or knowledge.

By "faith" I mean trusting that the idea of 'what is' that we hope to be true, will turn out to be true, even though we understand that it may not.

OK. I don't use the word faith for that purpose. I trust that my car will start the next time I turn the key based on experience, and of curse I hope it will and understand that it might not, but I don't call that faith. I know others do, but I try to avoid the ambiguity of that word by reserving it for just one of those two meanings. It's also why I don't call the mystery of existence God, since the word already means more than that to many.

For many, what I call faith is expressed in terms of certitude. They tell us they know, that they're sure.

And an atheist is someone who asserts philosophical atheism. That is someone who asserts as truth the counter-claim that no gods exist.

You know that that is not my definition of atheist. It doesn't include me or the majority of people with no god belief, whereas the definition that I use does. I have little reason to want to divide the group of nonbelievers into those who claim that there is no God and those that don't make that claim, and when I do, I use the term strong or gnostic to identify the group that does make that claim.

Incidentally, the term philosophical atheism doesn't mean much to me. I don't have philosophy of atheism. I have a worldview, but it is not derived from my unbelief in gods. I call my philosophy secular humanism, which is only one way an atheist can view the world. Some have been Stalinists. Their philosophy is not mine, and neither deserves to be called philosophical atheism. I suppose that astrologers, people who think that the world is controlled by the stars rather than the will of a conscious agent, are also atheists if they have no god belief. Their philosophy would be nothing like mine or the Stalinist.

Religious practices like confession, forgiveness, gratitude, honesty, amends, moderation, meditation, tithing, and so on are good for anyone, religious or not.

Agreed, but I don't consider those religious practices, except possibly confession if meant in the Catholic sense. When I think of what I called religious practices in my time, it was things like reading the Bible, passing out tracts on street corners, baptism, going to church, and praying. In other faiths, you might add circumcision, taking the Eucharist, sitting shiva, or wearing a hijab.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not know anything as a fact because religious beliefs are not factual, but logic tells anyone who is logical that God cannot become a man. Such a belief is utterly absurd.

How is that more absurd than God existing in the first place?

 

[Trailblazer]

How is that more absurd than God existing in the first place?

Since God existing is not absurd, God becoming a man is more absurd than God existing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since God existing is not absurd,

... to you.

Why do you say that?

God becoming a man is more absurd than God existing.

Why would it be absurd for a god who can supposedly do anything to do one particular thing?

 

[Trailblazer]

You brought in logic when you claimed to have evidence.

Just for the record, that is not what I did. I said I have evidence that indicates (not proves) that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God and I posted the evidence, but I never tied the evidence in with logic.

I have said innumerable times that logic cannot be used to prove a religious belief is true because God and Messengers are not subject to logical proofs.

Now I am done.

 

[Trailblazer]

... to you.

Why do you say that?

That's right, to me.
To me it is not absurd because I see evidence that God exists in the Messengers of God and the religions they established.

Why would it be absurd for a god who can supposedly do anything to do one particular thing?

Just because God can do anything it does not follow that God will do everything He can do.

If God became a man, then God would no longer be God - God would be a man. That is one reason it is absurd.

I believe that God manifests Himself as a man but that is not the same thing as becoming a man (incarnating in the flesh).

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Being manifested in the flesh is not the same as being incarnated in the flesh. The excerpt below from a longer article explains the difference between a Manifestation of God and an incarnation of God.

“The Christian equivalent to the Bahá'í concept of Manifestation is the concept of incarnation. The word to incarnate means 'to embody in flesh or 'to assume, or exist in, a bodily (esp. a human) form (Oxford English Dictionary). From a Bahá'í point of view, the important question regarding the subject of incarnation is, what does Jesus incarnate? Bahá'ís can certainly say that Jesus incarnated Gods attributes, in the sense that in Jesus, Gods attributes were perfectly reflected and expressed.[4] The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever perfectly and completely contained in a single human body, because the Bahá'í scriptures emphasize the omnipresence and transcendence of the essence of God…..

One can argue that Bahá'u'lláh is asserting that epistemologically the Manifestations are God, for they are the perfect embodiment of all we can know about God; but ontologically they are not God, for they are not identical with God's essence. Perhaps this is the meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John: 'If you had known me, you would have known my Father also' (John 14:7) and 'he who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9)…..

The New Testament, similarly, contains statements where Jesus describes Himself as God, and others where He makes a distinction between Himself and God. For example, 'I and the Father are One (John 10:30); and 'the Father is in me, and I am in the Father (John 1038); but on the other hand, 'the Father is greater than I (John 14:28); and 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). These statements do not contradict, but are complementary if one assumes they assert an epistemological oneness with God, but an ontological separateness from the Unknowable Essence.”

Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not know anything as a fact because religious beliefs are not factual, but logic tells anyone who is logical that God cannot become a man. Such a belief is utterly absurd.

It is not based upon my Baha'i beliefs, it is based upon the Bible and logic! Jesus never claimed to be God.

The 100 dollar difference is that Baha'i beliefs are rational whereas the Trinity belief is irrational, as many adept atheists have pointed out on this forum.

Okay, but a manifestation of God has a human and divine nature. So God can make a type of human that is in tune with him and what, maybe even channel himself through them? You know like the lamp analogy. So compared to ordinary humans, a manifestation is "virtually" God and could even tell people he is God and would not be lying?

Now we don't know what Jesus really said, but the gospels have him saying that he is one with God... that if you've seen him you've seen the Father... and he forgave a person their sins something the Jews said that only God could do. So are you sure it is so absurd for the early Christians to think Jesus was God in the flesh? Considering many rulers of the time claimed to be Gods.

 

[CG Didymus]

Some of us do know but not because we have proof.

Again, many religions define God differently than the Baha'is. And Baha'is say they have misinterpret their own Scriptures to come up with these beliefs. Okay, let's say that is true. Yet, those people say they "know" their God and some even think they have proof. Like God "proved" himself real to my brother. He felt the hand of God keeping him from falling off a mountain. Another friend went forward at a Pentecostal healing service and when the preacher laid hands on him he said it felt like warn honey was being poured on him.

You and I might not believe it, but they believe that was God. And because of things like that, they "know" God is real. But, only trouble is, that's the trinity God they believe did it. Which you and I don't believe is real.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think atheists are actually asking theists about gods. They're asking why theist who are explaining their beliefs why they believe them and why they don't.

Yes, I can see that is what atheists generally do, but as part of the conversation atheists also ask for evidence of God(s). The 'reason' they ask I cannot know; whether it is because they want to believe in God or whether they just want to know why believers believe in God.

The reason I enjoy this activity is because I like to exercise my mind. The discussion doesn't need to be about religion at all. Any faith based thinking will do. It can be politics (election hoax) or vaccines as well.

Why? Apart from enjoying writing, constructing argument, identifying logical fallacies, and reading the opinions of other secular humanists, I find value surveying the spectrum of types we find here on RF. I notice how faith-based thinkers vary from those that I can't find any difference in their thinking and mine apart from the fact that they claim to be theists.

Interestingly, that is also the reason I like the forum. Many people think I am here to promote my beliefs but that is not the reason at all. I like philosophy and logic a lot more than religion, and I am also very interested in human behavior and how and why people think and behave as they do, since psychology is my most recent academic background.

I start threads about God directed at atheists was a mental exercise but also I want to understand what atheists think and why they think that way; so it is for the same reason you said that you post to theists -- I want to know why atheists hold their non-beliefs.

It's really nothing like what many theists claim - that unbelievers who query them have a nagging hunch that there is a God, and are either drawn to the religious because of this, or else are rebellious and immoral hedonists trying to escape accountability.

No, I do not think that atheists are hedonists. I used to think that about nine years ago before I started posting on forums, but since I posted mostly on an atheist forum for several years I quickly learned that atheists are not hedonistic just because they do not believe in God -- there is no logical connection. In fact, I see more hedonistic believers than atheists because they "believe" that they can eat, drink, and be merry so to speak and they will still be 'saved and forgiven.' Christians even say that they are saved by grace alone, not by works, as if it is a badge of honor. Sadly, I do not see most Christians taking the teachings of Jesus seriously. I see them living for the world and all it has to offer and going against many of the injunctions of Jesus, yet Jesus said:

Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

John 12:24-26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

There is definitely an inconsistency. I have asked Christians about these verses and what they mean to them but they do not even seem to understand what they mean. I think that is because they don't really look at what Jesus taught but rather they adhere to Church doctrines of sin and salvation.

Now, how did I get off on this topic? I guess I was comparing atheists to 'some' believers. I have a lot of more respect for atheists than these kinds of believers because I see these believers as hypocritical. Moreover, if such believers do good deeds they do them believing that they will be getting a reward in heaven whereas atheists do good deeds not expecting nothing in return.

So now you know why I'm here, and I presume many others as well. It's not to talk about gods.

Thanks for sharing that. As I said above, your reasons for being here are very similar to my reasons.

My point was that one doesn't need to consult a holy book for moral guidance, that those whose moral codes are derived from the combination of reason and empathy are at the cutting edge of issues involving human rights, justice, improving the quality of life for as many as possible, environmental concerns including global warming, and the like.

Yes, I fully agree. People do not need a belief in God or a holy book in order to know what moral behavior is or work for human rights, justice, and have concerns about the environment. In fact, what I observed on the mostly atheist forum I posted on before I came here is that these are the very issues that atheists are concerned about.

Not to put down believers, but if they are too busy praying and worshiping God how do they have time to do much else? I cannot really say what Baha'is are doing since I am not involved with the Baha'is in my community but I know that Baha'is are doing a lot around the world, working for social and economic justice and working on environmental issues, because I get a lot of e-mails passed along to me from from the Baha'i administration and I can also read about their activities in the Bahá’í World News Service. If you look on that website you can see some of the activities that Baha'is are involved in.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, but a manifestation of God has a human and divine nature. So God can make a type of human that is in tune with him and what, maybe even channel himself through them? You know like the lamp analogy. So compared to ordinary humans, a manifestation is "virtually" God and could even tell people he is God and would not be lying?

Baha'u'llah wrote that Manifestations have a twofold nature, a divine nature and a human nature, so in that way they are different from an ordinary man, who is only human. Regarding the lamp analogy they reflect all of God's Attributes but a reflection is not the same as what it reflects.

Baha'is do not believe that a Manifestation of God is God incarnate, as I explained in the post above.
#1206 Trailblazer, Today at 3:42 PM

Jesus never claimed to be God and neither did Baha'u'llah. Unfortunately Jesus was not clear enough in His denial of being God, but rather he beat around the bush, so that is one reason that Christians get away with saying Jesus is God, but Baha'u'llah was very clear in His denial when He was accused of claiming to be God.

“Certain ones among you have said: “He it is Who hath laid claim to be God.” By God! This is a gross calumny. I am but a servant of God Who hath believed in Him and in His signs, and in His Prophets and in His angels. My tongue, and My heart, and My inner and My outer being testify that there is no God but Him, that all others have been created by His behest, and been fashioned through the operation of His Will. There is none other God but Him, the Creator, the Raiser from the dead, the Quickener, the Slayer. I am He that telleth abroad the favors with which God hath, through His bounty, favored Me. If this be My transgression, then I am truly the first of the transgressors.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 228

Now we don't know what Jesus really said, but the gospels have him saying that he is one with God... that if you've seen him you've seen the Father... and he forgave a person their sins something the Jews said that only God could do. So are you sure it is so absurd for the early Christians to think Jesus was God in the flesh? Considering many rulers of the time claimed to be Gods.

There is no reason to think that only God can forgive sins, just because Jews believe that. Below is what Baha'u'llah wrote in that regard.

“It is also recorded in the Gospel according to St. Luke, that on a certain day Jesus passed by a Jew who was sick of the palsy, and lay upon a couch. When the Jew saw Him, he recognized Him, and cried out for His help. Jesus said unto him: “Arise from thy bed; thy sins are forgiven thee.” Certain of the Jews, standing by, protested saying: “Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” And immediately He perceived their thoughts, Jesus answering said unto them: “Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, arise, and take up thy bed, and walk; or to say, thy sins are forgiven thee? that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins.” 7 This is the real sovereignty, and such is the power of God’s chosen Ones! All these things which We have repeatedly mentioned, and the details which We have cited from divers sources, have no other purpose but to enable thee to grasp the meaning of the allusions in the utterances of the chosen Ones of God, lest certain of these utterances cause thy feet to falter and thy heart to be dismayed.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 133-134

Jesus saying He was one with God or that if you had seen Him you has seen the Father does not mean Jesus was God, although that is a common understanding of those verses..

Jesus was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21), meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that Jesus and God are one and the same, so whatever pertains to Jesus, all His acts and doings, are identical with the Will of the Father. Jesus and God also share the same Holy Spirit, so in that sense they are one and the same. Jesus also shares the Attributes of God so in that sense they are one and the same. The verse below says that God was manifest in the flesh; it does not say that God became flesh. God cannot become flesh because God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[Trailblazer]

Again, many religions define God differently than the Baha'is. And Baha'is say they have misinterpret their own Scriptures to come up with these beliefs. Okay, let's say that is true. Yet, those people say they "know" their God and some even think they have proof. Like God "proved" himself real to my brother. He felt the hand of God keeping him from falling off a mountain. Another friend went forward at a Pentecostal healing service and when the preacher laid hands on him he said it felt like warn honey was being poured on him.

You and I might not believe it, but they believe that was God. And because of things like that, they "know" God is real. But, only trouble is, that's the trinity God they believe did it. Which you and I don't believe is real.

Beliefs do not reality make.....
Anyone can "believe" that God did x or y, but that does not prove a thing. This is the danger in listening to people's stories and being affected by them.

I also believe that maybe God did certain things for me, but I would never claim I know because I cannot know that God did these things. Take a look at the cat in my avatar, Simon. I believe that God had something to do with the way I got this cat who has brought so much joy to my life, but I cannot prove God had anything to do with it. However, it is very odd that I looked and looked for a Persian cat and could not find one even though I had the money to buy one, and then this cat was up for adoption. Usually Persian cats up for adoption are gone before I can even blink an eye, but nobody wanted Simon because he had not used a litter box in six years. I contacted the owner of the cat last April and she said he would probably be better in a single cat home but she would still consider me. I was not really actively looking for a cat then because I had settled in with the seven cats we had, but I thought he was really adorable and he needed a home. I did not care if he used the litter box but I did not really think it would be a problem.

After that I lost track of that woman until about a month ago when I got another e-mail notification from the pet adoption agency and saw that Simon was still up for adoption. I called the owner and she said she would bring him to my house because she wanted to see where he would be living and she really wanted to get a good home for him. She left him with me on a trial basis since we were not sure he would get along with my other cats, especially the three males. He hid for a while but it was not long before he settled in and he is best buddies with the other male cat I adopted late last fall and he follows me everywhere like a dog. From day one he used the litter box. I suspected the reason for his not using the litter box was behavioral because I have adopted several other cats who had litter box problems, but they never had them after we adopted them. Cats rule around here so they are all very happy and they all get along.

I always thank God when I look at Simon because I think God had something to do with how I got him, although I could never prove it. Maybe God knows He owed me one after all the suffering I have endured during the last two years with the loss of so many cats. I still have not forgiven God for all my suffering, but that is another story.

 

[F1fan]

Just for the record, that is not what I did. I said I have evidence that indicates (not proves) that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God and I posted the evidence, but I never tied the evidence in with logic.

So you're not convinced that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

I have said innumerable times that logic cannot be used to prove a religious belief is true because God and Messengers are not subject to logical proofs.

That's why it's not believable.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you're not convinced that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

I am sure of it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes we do. You express a strong need to believe what you do, and do so over and over and over.

You could not me more wrong. I have no need or desire to believe in God or Baha'u'llah. People who know me know that and they know why. I don't like God, I just believe He exists, and I only believe that because of the evidence

This is an odd statement. There are strong biological and cultural pressures to believe in religious concepts. Perhaps you aren't self-aware of your needs.

Perhaps you are not aware of my thoughts and feelings.
Every counselor I have seen for at least 20 years has told me how self-aware I am. Are you more qualified than they are?

Strong biological and cultural pressures to believe in religious concepts does not apply to everyone so to state that as if it does apply to everyone would be committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.

You are correct, but you can't present the required level of evidence, so we reject your claims/beliefs by default.

Go right ahead and reject what I believe, it is no skin off my nose. Why would I care?

 

[Trailblazer]

I haven't asked for evidence in recent posts. I only reference your failure to present adequate evidence that meets the required level of those interested in what is true.

The only way to know what is true is by looking at the evidence for a Messenger of God. You reject that evidence so you will never know what is true.

Because you are posting claims, and others are asking you questions about it.

I make no claims because I have nothing to claim. All I have are beliefs.

 

[samtonga43]

The only way to know what is true is by looking at the evidence for a Messenger of God. You reject that evidence so you will never know what is true.
I make no claims because I have nothing to claim. All I have are beliefs.

"Beliefs do not reality make.....
Anyone can "believe" that God did x or y, but that does not prove a thing".
Tb.

 

[Trailblazer]

"Beliefs do not reality make.....
Anyone can "believe" that God did x or y, but that does not prove a thing".
Tb.

You quoted me out of context so it misrepresents my position.
Don't you have anything better to do than misrepresent what I say, hoping other people will fall for it?
People here are not stupid, they can figure things out.

I said:
Beliefs do not reality make.....
Anyone can "believe" that God did x or y, but that does not prove a thing. This is the danger in listening to people's stories and being affected by them.

I also believe that maybe God did certain things for me, but I would never claim I know because I cannot know that God did these things.

That is completely unrelated to what you are responding to:

I said:
The only way to know what is true is by looking at the evidence for a Messenger of God. You reject that evidence so you will never know what is true.
I make no claims because I have nothing to claim. All I have are beliefs.

 

[CG Didymus]

Baha'u'llah wrote that Manifestations have a twofold nature, a divine nature and a human nature, so in that way they are different from an ordinary man, who is only human. Regarding the lamp analogy they reflect all of God's Attributes but a reflection is not the same as what it reflects.

Baha'is do not believe that a Manifestation of God is God incarnate, as I explained in the post above.
#1206 Trailblazer, Today at 3:42 PM

Jesus never claimed to be God and neither did Baha'u'llah. Unfortunately Jesus was not clear enough in His denial of being God, but rather he beat around the bush, so that is one reason that Christians get away with saying Jesus is God, but Baha'u'llah was very clear in His denial when He was accused of claiming to be God.

“Certain ones among you have said: “He it is Who hath laid claim to be God.” By God! This is a gross calumny. I am but a servant of God Who hath believed in Him and in His signs, and in His Prophets and in His angels. My tongue, and My heart, and My inner and My outer being testify that there is no God but Him, that all others have been created by His behest, and been fashioned through the operation of His Will. There is none other God but Him, the Creator, the Raiser from the dead, the Quickener, the Slayer. I am He that telleth abroad the favors with which God hath, through His bounty, favored Me. If this be My transgression, then I am truly the first of the transgressors.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 228

There is no reason to think that only God can forgive sins, just because Jews believe that. Below is what Baha'u'llah wrote in that regard.

“It is also recorded in the Gospel according to St. Luke, that on a certain day Jesus passed by a Jew who was sick of the palsy, and lay upon a couch. When the Jew saw Him, he recognized Him, and cried out for His help. Jesus said unto him: “Arise from thy bed; thy sins are forgiven thee.” Certain of the Jews, standing by, protested saying: “Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” And immediately He perceived their thoughts, Jesus answering said unto them: “Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, arise, and take up thy bed, and walk; or to say, thy sins are forgiven thee? that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins.” 7 This is the real sovereignty, and such is the power of God’s chosen Ones! All these things which We have repeatedly mentioned, and the details which We have cited from divers sources, have no other purpose but to enable thee to grasp the meaning of the allusions in the utterances of the chosen Ones of God, lest certain of these utterances cause thy feet to falter and thy heart to be dismayed.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 133-134

Jesus saying He was one with God or that if you had seen Him you has seen the Father does not mean Jesus was God, although that is a common understanding of those verses..

Jesus was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21), meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that Jesus and God are one and the same, so whatever pertains to Jesus, all His acts and doings, are identical with the Will of the Father. Jesus and God also share the same Holy Spirit, so in that sense they are one and the same. Jesus also shares the Attributes of God so in that sense they are one and the same. The verse below says that God was manifest in the flesh; it does not say that God became flesh. God cannot become flesh because God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Yeah, yeah, this "clear mirror" might work with Jesus, but like I've said many times... the Baha'i definition of a manifestation doesn't fit Adam, Noah, Abraham and even Moses. They were men and never claimed to be more than men. All of them are part of the Jewish story. A story that you have said was written down by men and is based on oral traditions. If those writers wanted them to be "divine" manifestations they could have easily written that in, but they didn't. They told stories about men that made mistakes, and yet, God used them.

But I know... Baha'u'llah knows the real story about them and retells their stories. And in those stories, they are manifestations. How convenient. And it also eliminates all contradictions, because whatever the Bible says is not what really happened. What Baha'u'llah says is what really happened. So he doesn't contradict the Bible, he corrects the Bible. Again, how convenient.

But wait, there's more. Take Noah, the Bible has him build a big boat and when the Earth gets flooded, Noah and his family and some animals are all that survives. If that true or fiction? Real history or a metaphor? If it is a metaphorical fictional story what is Baha'u'llah correcting? What? Like he says, "No, no, they wrote the fictional story incorrectly. Let me tell you how the fictional story really goes..." And he then tells some story about Noah that, I suspect, is not fictional. His story is what the real Noah did? Oh, and he did it for 950 years? And Shoghi says that is not the length of Noah's "dispensation"? But, I think, something about years being counted different? And they are not making this stuff up as they go along?

Among the Prophets was Noah. For nine hundred and fifty years He prayerfully exhorted His people and summoned them to the haven of security and peace. None, however, heeded His call. Each day they inflicted on His blessed person such pain and suffering that no one believed He could survive. How frequently they denied Him, how malevolently they hinted their suspicion against Him! Thus it hath been revealed: “And as often as a company of His people passed by Him, they derided Him. To them He said: ‘Though ye scoff at us now, we will scoff at you hereafter even as ye scoff at us. In the end ye shall know.’”3 Long afterward, He several times promised victory to His companions and fixed the hour thereof. But when the hour struck, the divine promise was not fulfilled. This caused a few among the small number of His followers to turn away from Him, and to this testify the records of the best-known books.​

 

[Trailblazer]

I thought I should probably let this thread die because it nearly killed me answering all these posts but I told you I would be back as soon as I got caught up so here I am... You might be sorry I am back but I always try to keep my promises.

It is not a prove then. Then it is simply you convincing yourself of it being true.

Definition of Proof
1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

If you prove to yourself that something is true, then it is not a fact or an established truth. Gravity is an established truth, no one is going to argue against gravity as being a fact. And if they do, we can perform countless of demonstrations of why gravity is real and therefore an established fact.

I never said that it would be an established truth just because I proved it to myself; I said it wouldn't be an established fact unless it could be proven as a fact that is widely accepted. However, if I proved it to myself by looking at the evidence it has been proven to me. Do you understand the difference?

It just doesn't make sense to prove anything to one self and then assume it is a truth. That is messing with the definition at best and fooling one self. The reason for this, is that you can prove anything to yourself, because there is nothing preventing you from not making mistakes. That is one of the reasons we demand people that make claims to provide evidence for what they are saying, if they ever want to make their claim anything other than that.

I did not assume my religion was the truth; I investigated it and I came to believe it was the truth. I used the evidence to prove it to myself, can you think of another way for me to how if it is true or not?

I am making no claims because I have nothing to claim. Baha'u'llah made claims and I believed His claims after I looked at the evidence that proved to me that His claims were valid.

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

To say that since I can prove anything to myself so I should not bother to look at the evidence and try to prove to myself that any religious belief is true is not logical because that would preclude me ever from knowing is any religious belief is true.

Of course I could make a mistake because humans are fallible so they are prone to make mistakes, but that does not mean that everything we do is a mistake. To say that since there is nothing preventing me from not making mistakes so I should not do anything because I might make a mistake is not logical. If I am so afraid making a mistake that I don't make any choices how could I ever learn anything?

All that said, what is unreasonable is to expect other people to prove to us that a religious belief is true. When atheists say I have the burden of proof to prove to them that my religion is true as if that is unreasonable, because it is not my job to prove anything to anyone else UNLESS I am trying to convince them it is true. Burden of proof applies to law because a prosecutor is trying to prove that the defendant is guilty of a crime. I am not trying to prove that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God so I have no burden.

You must be able to see the issue with what you are saying? Take a flat earther for example, they have proven to themselves that the Earth is flat, but we know that this is neither a fact or an established truth. And the Earth can't be both shapes at the same time, so either they are correct that it is flat or they are not, but it can't be both shapes, regardless of whether they have proven it to themselves or not. They have simply fooled or convince themselves of something, which is of absolutely no value, until they provide enough evidence to show that they are correct.

You cannot compare a belief about the physical reality that is falsifiable to a religious belief that is not falsifiable. It has been proven that the earth is not flat as a scientific fact, so that means if fat earthers still believe that the earth is flat they are denying the evidence, just like Trumpsters are denying the evidence that clearly proved that Biden won the election. There will never be any evidence that proves the earth is flat because the earth is round.

Therefore it can never become a proof, unless you throw your claim out there for others to test and verify, and eventually if everyone that test it, reach the same conclusion that what you are saying is true, then it will become a proof and an established truth.

This is what you and other atheists do not understand: Religion is not science so religion cannot be tested and verified like scientific theories that later established truths. That is why religion can never become an established fact that everyone will believe is true, not unless God intervened on earth and did something to make everyone know it is true. In other words, there is no test for a religion that will prove a religion is true to everyone. all we have are our rational minds to make that determination, but everyone who uses their rational mind will not come to the same conclusions because people are all very different in how they think and assess information.

Again, that is not what a proof is. And if you can't prove God exist, then how on Earth are you going to prove to yourself that he send a messenger? When your requirement for this is impossible to prove and you even admit that it is impossible. So I don't understand why this is not the very last conclusion that you would ever accept, because it is the one that have the absolute minimum amount of evidence, and you are even aware of it.

The way we prove that to ourselves is by looking at all the evidence tat will help us determines if the alleged Messenger was making a true claim. It is impossible to prove it as a fact that everyone will believe -- and that is one reason I never even bother to try to prove it to anyone -- but it is not impossible to prove it to ourselves.

Hypothetically speaking, let;s a=-say that a man such as Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. What kind of evidence would you expect to have in order to prove that?

It is when you are trying to establish the truth of something. Because you simply can't make a sound argument, because you have nothing to work with except assumptions, which can't be verified.

A logical argument cannot be used to prove a man was a Messenger of God and conclude that God exists because it can never be proven that God exists or that God sent Messengers, so atheists should give up the whole idea of telling me to prove my religion is true with a logical argument. However, just because a religion cannot be proven true with a logical argument that does not mean that it is not true; it only means it is not subject to being proven with a logical argument. Do you understand what I mean?

Yes, that is what you are doing, you are sharing your conviction that Bahai is correct. Just as a Christian or Muslim would share what they believe is true. You simply have to leave out the part of proving stuff to yourself and that this have some sort of value, because it really doesn't and its not only in regards to religious beliefs, its like that with any belief.

But I am not presenting a logical argument for my belief as I said above; I am just saying that I believe it is true based upon the evidence. One can only prove a belief is true to themselves and I already explained why.

How would you do that, when their claim is that they got their information from something we can't prove exist? Again, I said it before, I or any other atheist or people from other religions do not care, what Baha'u'llah set of good things, its completely irrelevant in regards to the claim of him getting this from God or not. Because I have no way of verifying that God actually said these things or not, maybe God said something completely different and Baha'u'llah heard wrong or misunderstood it. I can't verify it, so its completely irrelevant whatever things he said. It does nothing in regards to the claim of whether he got this from God or not.

I am sorry you cannot understand my logic. If God sent a Messengers as proof of His existence then there is not going to be any other proof forthcoming so we have two choices -- either look at the Messengers or decide that it does not matter if God exists and be a confirmed atheist. To me it makes logical sense to look at the Messenger who claimed to get the message from God, but only if he meets certain minimum criteria.

Even if that was true, it would do nothing in regards to the claim of whether he got it from God or not, maybe he just made a lucky guess, I need to be able to tell the difference, and talking his word for it, is simply not going to cut it. It would be exactly the same as if you asked me to prove that the bible was true, and the very first thing I do is to say that "We can read in the bible that...", of course the bible is going to verify itself, so its pointless to use that as argument.

I guess this is where faith comes in, but it does not have to be blind faith; it can be a reason-based faith if it is faith supported by evidence. All I can say is what worked for me, I cannot explain anyone else's thinking process and how they came to believe in Baha'u'llah. For me, once I looked at all the evidence for Baha'u'llah I believed His claim that God spoke to Him because in my mind there would be no other explanation for what He accomplished on His mission and what He wrote, and there would be no other explanation for a thriving world religion that was established in His name. That is not to mention all the Bible prophecies that were fulfilled by His coming, including the fact that the Baha'i World Centre is on top of Mt. Carmel, fulfilling many Old Testament prophecies.

I don't think that is true, if people believe that God is an intervening God, then we should be able to detect that, but so far we haven't. And if God is not intervening, then why should we care about him.

There is no reason to think that God would or should intervene and speak to everyone directly when God can communicate through one Messenger in every age who can pass the messages along to everyone. I know all the atheist objections to Messengers since I have been discussing this with atheists or nine years, but because I have discussed this so much I already have a logical argument for my position and it is permanently seared into my memory!

 

[Nimos]

I thought I should probably let this thread die because it nearly killed me answering all these posts but I told you I would be back as soon as I got caught up so here I am... You might be sorry I am back but I always try to keep my promises.

That is fine as well

I never said that it would be an established truth just because I proved it to myself; I said it wouldn't be an established fact unless it could be proven as a fact that is widely accepted. However, if I proved it to myself by looking at the evidence it has been proven to me. Do you understand the difference?

But in that case it is not a proof, but rather a conviction or belief.

Take this scenario, we are in court and we have A and B on each side and the judge. What meaning would it have for A to say, "I have proven to myself that my client didn't do it." Both B and the judge would simply shake their head, because such statement is meaningless. If neither B or the judge is convince that A is indeed presenting a proof, what is it worth to then refer to it as such?

Therefore it would only make sense for A to say, "I believe, I can prove that my client didn't do it. Here are the evidence...."

If A then present these and B and the judge point out flaws in it, then either A will have to explain these flaws or it is simply not a proof.

Look at the definition of proof:

1. Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

So A can present a lot of evidence, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily establish the truth, either because these evidence can't be verified in such way that we are certain that they actually explain the truth. Such as whether or not Baha'u'llah is a messenger of God, given that we can't verify that God exist to begin with. Therefore it opens up for the possibility that Baha'u'llah is lying or mistaken. And we can't rule out these options, which means that the evidence can't established the truth as you also say. But in order to call something a proof, the evidence need to established that as the definition say.

So it doesn't make sense to say that you have proven it to yourself, since you can't establish the truth. Again, either Baha'u'llah is a messenger of God or he is not. It doesn't differ from you to me whether that is true. So if you can't establish the truth for me, then its impossible or meaningless to say that you can do it for yourself.

I did not assume my religion was the truth; I investigated it and I came to believe it was the truth. I used the evidence to prove it to myself, can you think of another way for me to how if it is true or not?

There is no other way to do it, but the conclusion is not that you have proven it to yourself, but rather that you have reached the conclusion that you believe that it is true or are convince that it is. Again doesn't mean that you are not correct, but it simply hasn't been proven.

To say that since I can prove anything to myself so I should not bother to look at the evidence and try to prove to myself that any religious belief is true is not logical because that would preclude me ever from knowing is any religious belief is true.

If you misinterpret the evidence then you can prove it to yourself, that is why you need others to verify it. And again, you simply can't rule out that Baha'u'llah is lying or simply mistaken, there is no way to do it, since we can't verify God's existence.

That is what im trying to tell you, you draw wrong conclusions based on the evidence. Because they simply doesn't give you the information you need to establish the truth of his statement.

It is not up to you, to try to make up excuses or trying to make his explanation fit for how he can prove his statement, that is for him to do. And from what I understand he haven't done such thing.

Again with the aliens, if I made such claim, it is up to me to prove it, not for you to try to figure out how my claim could be true.

Of course I could make a mistake because humans are fallible so they are prone to make mistakes, but that does not mean that everything we do is a mistake. To say that since there is nothing preventing me from not making mistakes so I should not do anything because I might make a mistake is not logical. If I am so afraid making a mistake that I don't make any choices how could I ever learn anything?

I don't think you have done anything wrong, except in regards to the conclusion you are drawing. That these things somehow result in a proof for you. Because you seem to use the word wrong as if it is possible for there to be several truths regarding the same claim. And it is simply not possible in this case, the claim doesn't allow it. Its either true or false, no other options.

When atheists say I have the burden of proof to prove to them that my religion is true as if that is unreasonable, because it is not my job to prove anything to anyone else UNLESS I am trying to convince them it is true. Burden of proof applies to law because a prosecutor is trying to prove that the defendant is guilty of a crime. I am not trying to prove that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God so I have no burden.

I completely agree. If you don't make the claim then you have no burden of proof. But then you should also stop referring to is as being a proof. Because it doesn't work with the definition, it is merely a belief.

You cannot compare a belief about the physical reality that is falsifiable to a religious belief that is not falsifiable. It has been proven that the earth is not flat as a scientific fact, so that means if fat earthers still believe that the earth is flat they are denying the evidence, just like Trumpsters are denying the evidence that clearly proved that Biden won the election. There will never be any evidence that proves the earth is flat because the earth is round.

You can compare them because the same rules applies in both cases. The only difference is the conclusion.

Claim:
1. Earth is flat
We have X amount of evidence demonstrating that it is not, therefore the conclusion is that it is an established truth that Earth is not flat.

Claim:
2. God created the Universe

We have no evidence to demonstrate that. Therefore the conclusion is that we do not know.

No difference between how we approach the claims, the difference is in the conclusion, because we do not have any evidence to back up the claim that God created the Universe.

This is what you and other atheists do not understand: Religion is not science so religion cannot be tested and verified like scientific theories that later established truths. That is why religion can never become an established fact that everyone will believe is true, not unless God intervened on earth and did something to make everyone know it is true. In other words, there is no test for a religion that will prove a religion is true to everyone. all we have are our rational minds to make that determination, but everyone who uses their rational mind will not come to the same conclusions because people are all very different in how they think and assess information.

Atheists very well understand this. Which is probably the reason they are atheists to begin with

Some people believe that God listen to prayers and intervene in our lives, and if that is the case, then we should be able to establish that. Also tests have been done on prayers, where people would pray for sick people and apparently it seems to have either no effect or slightly worse. If prayers works, we would expect to see those prayed for doing a hell of a lot better than those that weren't prayed for. But we don't.

I told you that religion is about faith, and they have had thousands of years trying to figure out how to establish the truth of their claims, but they haven't made any progress at all, so who other than the religions can you blame for this?

Atheists simply say that we see no evidence for there being a God(s). So as above we reach the conclusion that we don't know, and therefore see no reason to assume it is true.

Hypothetically speaking, let;s a=-say that a man such as Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. What kind of evidence would you expect to have in order to prove that?

I have no clue, that must be for God or him to figure out. But I see no reason why I should give any of them any slack regarding their claim, because they don't know or can't prove it. Then ill rather be skeptical about the validity of the claim than giving them the benefit of doubt.

A logical argument cannot be used to prove a man was a Messenger of God and conclude that God exists because it can never be proven that God exists or that God sent Messengers, so atheists should give up the whole idea of telling me to prove my religion is true with a logical argument.

I can understand that it is frustrating, were I a believer I would have it the exact same way. But atheists did not put God, Baha'u'llah or you in this situation and again it really doesn't have a lot to do with religion, its about making claims in general.

if I claimed that aliens were true, but they hadn't provided me with any way to prove it. Then its not your fault for not believing me. especially if I go out and tell people that I have proof that aliens are real, again, proof doesn't work on individuals. So even if I said that I have proven to my self that they are real, it is meaningless for you, unless I can provide you with evidence for it.

I am sorry you cannot understand my logic. If God sent a Messengers as proof of His existence then there is not going to be any other proof forthcoming so we have two choices -- either look at the Messengers or decide that it does not matter if God exists and be a confirmed atheist.

Im sorry, but it is not logical, when its a circular argument trying to establish truth. That is what me and others are trying to explain to you.

The argument you have been given or have accepted, doesn't allow for you to ever reach a sound conclusion, that is the way it is structured. And its nearly impossible to convince you of this, because you don't ask the correct questions. You accept certain things, which allow for this circular argument to make sense, which is a logical fallacy.

Please try to watch this video somewhere in the beginning the guy uses the words "Claim Y" and "Claim X", in your case try to replace the following:

Claim Y - "The messengers proof God"
Claim X - "God send messengers"

There is no reason to think that God would or should intervene and speak to everyone directly when God can communicate through one Messenger in every age who can pass the messages along to everyone.

That is a claim, lots of people disagree with you on that and don't accept your view on the messengers. That is why we need to establish the truth or simply admit that it is just a belief.