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

[CG Didymus]

How would you know it was God's image and signature on the toast?

How would you know it's from God if a man said or wrote it? Those old stories always had some supernatural thing happen to back up what a prophet said. Like with Elijah and the prophets of Baal.

1 Kings 18:21 Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”

But the people said nothing.

22 Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the Lord’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”

(T)he prophets of Baal,.. called on the name of Baal from morning till noon.... But there was no response; no one answered.

29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered...

30 Then Elijah... built an altar in the name of the Lord, and he dug a trench around it... 33 He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”

34 “Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.

“Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. 35 The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.

36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God”...

38 Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The Lord—he is God! The Lord—he is God!”​

Something like that would be good. But, would God send fire if a Christian or a Baha'i tried that? No, we wouldn't expect it.

​

 

[Sheldon]

Because the atheists are the ones who say "that's not evidence." (see the OP)

I'm not sure that is true, at least not in the generic way you've claimed it. However epistemologically speaking, it is clear that theism is the belief a deity exists, and therefore the affirmation of a claim as are all beliefs. So it is entirely incumbent on all theists and theism, to demsonrate sufficient evidence for the claim inherent in that belief.

People who claim the Loch Ness Monster is real, can't seriously claim that belief is in any way credible, until those who don't share that belief somehow disprove it.

 

[Trailblazer]

How would you know it's from God if a man said or wrote it? Those old stories always had some supernatural thing happen to back up what a prophet said. Like with Elijah and the prophets of Baal.

I guess you forgot that those are just stories. What reason do we have to believe that the supernatural things in the stories every transpired?

 

[Sheldon]

(1) Did you read the OP?

(2) Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

(3) So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

(4) If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

(1) Yes I did.

(2) Your claim, so you have to demsonrate objective evidence for it, it's not a hard concept, though it seems to be lost on you.

(3) It's your belief, it is not incumbent on any atheist to explain to you what your belief requires. What would you accept as sufficient evidence before you'd belief invivisble unicorns are real? Your question is absurd...

(4) It's not my belief, ask those who claim this to be true.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not sure that is true, at least not in the generic way you've claimed it. However epistemologically speaking, it is clear that theism is the belief a deity exists, and therefore the affirmation of a claim as are all beliefs. So it is entirely incumbent on all theists and theism, to demonstrate sufficient evidence for the claim inherent in that belief.

I do present the evidence but what people do with that evidence is not my responsibility.

It is also important for me to point out that I believe in the claims of Baha'u'llah but I do not have any burden of proof because i am not making any claims. Baha'u'llah made claims so it was His burden to back up His claims. All I do is pass along the evidence that back up His claims.

 

[Sheldon]

I said "If there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him."

There is nothing circular about that, it is completely logical.

Well that's not what you said, you said "God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him."

that is as good an example of circular reasoning as I've ever seen, and the fact you edited your original quote to misrepresent my observation is rather dishonest, but as you say I'm new here, so I shall keep an open mind and let you explain why in your response you omitted the claim you made and simply quoted the circular conclusion?

 

[Sheldon]

I do present the evidence but what people do with that evidence is not my responsibility.

Could you please link the most compelling piece of "evidence" you claim to have presented? As I have seen countless theists describe obviously subjective hearsay and irrational argument as evidence, so I'm very dubious I've stumbled upon the one theists who inexplicably has this evidence they all claim to have, but always fail to demsonrate,

 

[Sheldon]

(1) I do present the evidence

(2) I believe in the claims of Baha'u'llah

(3) i am not making any claims.

The claim in number 3 is directly contradicted by the claims in 1 and 2.

 

[Trailblazer]

(2) Your claim, so you have to demonstrate objective evidence for it, it's not a hard concept, though it seems to be lost on you.

I presented the evidence. There is no objective evidence of God. The Messengers of God are the only objective evidence that God exists.

(3) It's your belief, it is not incumbent on any atheist to explain to you what your belief requires. What would you accept as sufficient evidence before you'd belief invivisble unicorns are real? Your question is absurd...

No, my question is a fair question. Since atheists say that Messengers of God are not evidence that God exists I want to know what would be sufficient evidence for them to believe that God exists.

(4) It's not my belief, ask those who claim this to be true.

That was just an attempt to get you to reason rationally. If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

The obvious answer is that the evidence would have to come from God, since we cannot locate God with a GPS tracker in order to verify that God exists.

 

[Sheldon]

I present my best evidence constantly, but whenever I present it atheists say "that's not evidence" as I said in the OP.

Since you are new to this forum I will present the evidence again to you. I am a Baha'i so I believe in Baha'u'llah.
I posted the claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah on this thread:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

There is no evidence in that link, just a string of unevidenced assertions?

I spoke to god last night and he assured me you're lying.

How is my claim (albeit without the woo woo verbosity) objectively any less credible than yours?

 

[Sheldon]

No, I want what I believe God wants.

I want to win the lottery, it's absurd to believe that what I want is somehow real, even if I surreptitiously win it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, my question is a fair question. Since atheists say that Messengers of God are not evidence that God exists I want to know what would be sufficient evidence for them to believe that God exists.

This is not exactly a fair question since the concept of "God" is yours. You would have to properly define your God before you could even begin to ask atheists what evidence they would accept.

And to be honest, the burden of proof does lie upon the person making the claim. You should be asking yourself why believers can never (at least I have never seen it) support the existence of their gods.

 

[Sheldon]

We cannot infer from omnipotence and omniscience that God would do what it would take to convince everyone of his existence.

We can however infer such a deity COULD "do what it would take to convince everyone of his existence." So if theists claim, such a deity exists, and has made no discernible effort to show it exists to me, then it either doesn't exist or doesn't care, and is playing sadistic games. Either way, to accept unevidenced hearsay from one version of one deity's adherents is simply absurd.

There is no objective evidence that deities create humans in their image, there is overwhelming evidence that humans create deities in their image, and it'd be a remarkable coincidence that each and every one of those deities vary according to the ignorance and prejudice of the epoch and culture from which the stories about them emerged.

 

[Sheldon]

The scriptures that the Messengers reveal are accessible to everyone.

Forgive me, but so are the Harry potter novels, this does not evidence wizardry.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well that's not what you said, you said "God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him."

that is as good an example of circular reasoning as I've ever seen, and the fact you edited your original quote to misrepresent my observation is rather dishonest,

I did not change anything that was said in the OP, I just did not include all of it because it was unnecessary to make my point. I'd be careful about calling people dishonest, as that does not bode well on this forum, especially when you cannot prove it.

Trailblazer said: I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.
#1 Trailblazer, Oct 1, 2021

Trailblazer said: I said "If there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him."
#1300 Trailblazer, 45 minutes ago

but as you say I'm new here, so I shall keep an open mind and let you explain why in your response you omitted the claim you made and simply quoted the circular conclusion?

I omitted it because it was not necessary for the post I was replying to.

"God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him.

The because is misleading and should have been omitted since these are two separate statements.

1. God exists and there is evidence.
2. If there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him.

There is nothing circular about either of those statements.

 

[Trailblazer]

Could you please link the most compelling piece of "evidence" you claim to have presented? As I have seen countless theists describe obviously subjective hearsay and irrational argument as evidence, so I'm very dubious I've stumbled upon the one theists who inexplicably has this evidence they all claim to have, but always fail to demsonrate,

I would have to know what you would consider the most compelling piece of "evidence."
What kind of evidence would be compelling to you?

 

[Trailblazer]

The claim in number 3 is directly contradicted by the claims in 1 and 2.

Trailblazer said: ↑
(1) I do present the evidence

(2) I believe in the claims of Baha'u'llah

(3) I am not making any claims.

How is number 3 contradicted by 1 and 2?
There are no claims in either 1 or 2 or 3.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no evidence in that link, just a string of unevidenced assertions?

That is exactly what I predicted you would say.
I guess your reading comprehension is very poor.
Claims were presented and after that the evidence that supports the claims was presented.

Ask me if I care if you consider that to be evidence. When you say "that's not evidence" all you do is show that you cannot reason logically.

 

[Trailblazer]

I spoke to god last night and he assured me you're lying.

How is my claim (albeit without the woo woo verbosity) objectively any less credible than yours?

You have no evidence to back up your claim, that is now it is different.

 

[Trailblazer]

I want to win the lottery, it's absurd to believe that what I want is somehow real, even if I surreptitiously win it.

How is that in any way related to what I said?

If God exists, I want what God wants, because if God exists and created me then God knows more than I do regarding what is best for me.
Logic 101.