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

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then it's totally irrelevant to this thread.

Take #2:
There is no objective relevance for all of the everyday world.
Someone: You are wrong in a non-moral sense.
Me: Yes, but I am still here. So that is the falsification of your model.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You can't assume that something is real just because science hasn't disproven it yet.

I see that there is a source of Truth, that is actually responsible for our scientific capacity.

Regards Tony

 

[joelr]

So no scientific refutation, only there is no evidence of a soul.

We know science has not proved there is no soul, in fact there is much yet to explain.

Regards Tony

Yes refutation.

"‘Abdu’l-Bahá states that humans, while they share some common characteristics with animals, are in some fundamental ways distinct from them. He also states that humans have always existed, either potentially or in actuality. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, comparing the existence of a tree in a seed, states that humankind has always been present since the beginning of the evolutionary process, and links the evolutionary mechanisms to, not only as intrinsic to development of life, but also as the unfolding of God's creation."


"While ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states that man progressed through many stages before reaching this present form, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states that humans are a distinct species, and not an animal. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states that in every stage of evolution though which humans progressed – either mineral, vegetable, and animal – they were potentially humans. "


"‘Abdu’l-Bahá rejected the interpretation that the common ancestry of humans with other animals implies that humans are animals. He does not, however, deny that humans have much in common with the animal world, but denies instead that animal characteristics comprise humankind's entire nature. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states that humans are on a different plane because of their spiritual and intellectual powers:"


"While Abdu'l-Bahá states that humans species in its current form came out of evolution, he states that evolution is governed by universal law, and states that composition of elements responsible for the appearance of life and humans is not a random process:"


"‘Abdu’l-Bahá's comments seem to differ from the standard evolutionary picture of human development, where Homo sapiens as one species, along with the great apes, evolved from a common ancestor living in Africa millions of years ago. ‘"

"Thus in Bahá’í view, humans are anatomically connected with the animals as in scientific thought, but their true reality, which is intellectual and spiritual, is distinct and separate."


Saying human is not animal is wrong. Also species right before us, H Heidlebergensis used tools, clothing, shelter, buried their dead and may have had a language and some spiritual beliefs.
He made these claims before we found the intermediate hominids. You can tap dance and try to reconcile some of this but it's just more unproven new age wu. Like this and old scripture if a God was actually communication with a person we would get more than the same old folk tales.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

No, not at all. I believe that there were many other Messengers of God who have come throughout history, but they all came from the one true God. The primary Messengers of God are shown on this chart below.

View attachment 57029

Fair enough.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

You are different from the average atheist I have encountered on forums. What most atheists say is they do not believe in God because there is no evidence that God exists.

What questions do you have that you think that God would not have an answer to? I believe that God is all-knowing so God has all the answers. Some of these answers are revealed to us by the Messengers of God whereas some are not, and there is a reason for that; we would be overwhelmed if the Messenger of God revealed everything He knew, everything that God revealed to Him

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”

Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 176

Scientific and religious Truth are both relative to the times in which they are discovered/revealed by God. In science, as new discoveries are made they will often replace what was previously considered factual. In religion, Truth from God is additive, and is revealed in stages as humanity is able to understand more and as humanity needs more. God is all-knowing so God knows everything, but if All of God’s Truth was revealed to us all at once, we would not be able to understand it would be of little use to us. We would simply be overwhelmed with too much information. Truth needs to be suited to the capacity of the recipients living at the time.

You are a lot like me in many ways although not like me in other ways. I have always been very self-sufficient and I still am. I do not require assistance from God. I seek certainty but I do not seek comfort or a sense of belonging and that is one reason why I am not active in my religion. I do recognize the spiritual authority of the Messenger of God as superseding any other human authority because I believe that the Messenger is not only human but also divine by nature. I do see the need to invoke the Messenger of God to explain spiritual and moral things, but I believe that science and other disciplines are perfectly adequate to explain anything related to the material world.

You said that you are the ultimate lost cause as far as theism goes, a devout atheist. Is that for all the reasons you stated above or are you also an atheist because you do not see any evidence for God? Would you reconsider if you saw evidence for God, or are you simply disinterested in believing in God?

Please forgive me all the questions. Psychology is my academic background so I am very curious about people, how they think and feel and why they think and feel that way.

I am an atheist primarily because I see no reason to invoke a creator to explain any aspect of physical reality. From atoms to galaxies, from viruses to Blue Whales. All is reducible. All is naturalistic. Even the origin of the universe itself requires no supernatural causation. Secondly I am an atheist because God itself has no explanation for its existence, theists merely assert that God is infinite and outside of the universe, and so cause and effect etc does not apply, as Thomas Aquinas set out centuries ago. I find that explanation unsatisfactory and all too convenient. Thirdly I am atheist because I have no desire or need to worship something, I find the concept of worship itself quite appalling. Some psychology there I am sure. However, answering your question about evidence. If I came across incontrovertible undeniable evidence for your God. Then obviously I'd have to reassess my position, very radically. I would be bitterly disappointed that the universe is not naturalistic. The beauty of the universe in my eyes arises from the fact that order arises from chaos, stars manifesting from collapsing gas clouds, complexity from simple origins. With not a shred of design required. Matter merely obeying the laws physics and interacting systemically to generate everything. Me and you, the Moon, diamonds and rubies, the Galaxies, Black holes, neutron stars, everything. Hope that helps!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So no scientific refutation, only there is no evidence of a soul.

We know science has not proved there is no soul, in fact there is much yet to explain.

Regards Tony

I think it would be more accurate to say that "soul" has not been defined clearly enough to allow testable claims to be made about the soul.

IOW, it's not so much that the the soul is an idea with merit; it's that it falls short of even being wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

 

[Aupmanyav]

He also states that humans have always existed, either potentially or in actuality.

Wonder of wonder, sure, it is absolutely scientific. The Lemuridae were potentially human.
I suppose like Bahaollah, Abdul Baha also did not go to school or college.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The claims are the evidence.

Why did a Messenger from God come? They came to change our direction in life from material pursuit to spiritual values and this is the evidence, has their Messages changed hearts and lives?

We are told by the Messenger that humankind has the capacity to emancipate itself from the world of nature; “for as long as man is captive to nature he is a ferocious animal, as the struggle for existence is one of the exigencies of the world of nature.” but at the same time the natural world is a divine trust given to us for which all members of the human family are the stewards of the planet’s vast resources and are responsible to use them wisely, without greed and want of power.

That is the evidence, the change of heart, a reframing of all our previous conceptions and embracing a new orientation for all our activities. The inward life of man as well as his outward environment are reshaped and that is one of the evidences of a Messenger.

Regards Tony

They're not though, because they are claims.
If this were true, then claims about Santa Claus would be evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, which of course, they are not. And you could even go a step further as you have here and claim that claims for the existence of Santa Claus cause children to behave and be good little children so it must be true, but in actuality, that doesn't lend any credence to the claim that Santa Claus exists.

 

[SkepticThinker]

By looking at the evidence.

And that evidence is ... ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why do you think that? That would be circular reasoning. Moreover, anyone can make claims, as many false prophets do.
Baha'u'llah never said that His claims are the evidence that His claims are true. Rather He said:

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

Because they are claims. That's why.
I agree that anyone can make claims. Claims are not evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Messengers of God are not self appointed. They are appointed by God to speak for God.

“Know ye that I am afraid of none except God. In none but Him have I placed My trust; to none will I cleave but Him, and wish for naught except the thing He hath wished for Me. This, indeed, is My heart’s desire, did ye but know it. I have offered up My soul and My body as a sacrifice for God, the Lord of all worlds. Whoso hath known God shall know none but Him, and he that feareth God shall be afraid of no one except Him, though the powers of the whole earth rise up and be arrayed against him. I speak naught except at His bidding, and follow not, through the power of God and His might, except His truth. He, verily, shall recompense the truthful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 126

This is another claim.

Like my claim that I am the Messenger of the Pixies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have made no claims, I have only stated my beliefs.

You have made multiple claims in this thread. As I said before, just stating "I haven't made any claims" doesn't make it true when I and others can clearly see you making claims.
I mean, this is just getting silly.

Why would it matter if others agree that I have made claims? They are not claims, they are beliefs.

I am pointing out that others have noticed as well. Despite your protestations that you aren't making any claims.
Well, if you're not making claims, for some reason, there are a bunch of people here thinking you've done just that. I wonder why that is?

Psychologically I can explain why many atheists think that I am making claims.

That would be because you are making claims. Non-atheists have pointed this out as well, if that makes you feel any better.

Some atheists cannot imagine that I could have a belief and NOT claim it is true because they project their own arrogance onto me, thinking that if they believed something they would claiming it is true.

Yeah, it must be the Big Bad Atheists' fault.

Also, you want to make my beliefs into claims so you can say I have the burden of proof, but it won't work because I am onto this game. I have no burden of proof because I am not trying to prove that my beliefs are true because that is not the job that Baha'u'llah gave me to do. Baha'u'llah said that everyone is responsible to investigate the truth for themselves.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

“What does it mean to investigate reality? It means that man must forget all hearsay and examine truth himself, for he does not know whether statements he hears are in accordance with reality or not. Wherever he finds truth or reality, he must hold to it, forsaking, discarding all else; for outside of reality there is naught but superstition and imagination.” – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 62.

Yes, I can tell you've been trying to avoid the burden of proof since the beginning of this thread. Which I guess is why you have to keep claiming that you're not making any claims when you actually are. Sorry, but it's not the Big Bad Atheists' fault that you can't back up your claims. That falls on you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I am not claiming that, I believe that.

Why can't you just accept what I say? I am claiming nothing.

Speaking for me and contradicting me constantly is arrogant to the hilt.

I'm not speaking for you.
I'm pointing out that you have made many claims in this thread.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

This is another claim.

Like my claim that I am the Messenger of the Pixies.

Pesky little blighters. (Don't tell em I said that!)

 

[SkepticThinker]

Pesky little blighters. (Don't tell em I said that!)

I won't, but the Pixies know all, so watch out!

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer: That is why he was sometimes wrong. His science was not from God since he never received a revelation from God.
TransmutingSoul: It is important to point out trailblazer that this is not correct under the Covenant given by Baha'u'llah.
Funny.

It is not really funny when Baha'is are not on the same page, but who is right or wrong is no big deal to me because I am not invested in what has become of the religion just because I believe in Baha'u'llah.

I will defend Baha'u'llah but not the rest of the religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

And that evidence is ... ?

Claims are not evidence. Evidence is what supports the claims.
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

 

[Trailblazer]

Because they are claims. That's why.
I agree that anyone can make claims. Claims are not evidence.

That's true, claims are not evidence.

That passage was not a claim It was a statement about the evidence, what the evidence is that supports the claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is another claim.

Like my claim that I am the Messenger of the Pixies.

No, it is not a claim. It is part of scriptures, Baha'u'llah explaining His relationship to God.
A claim would be Baha'u'llah "claiming" to be a Messenger of God, that is a claim.

Atheists are obsessed with idea of claims and they cannot separate claims from scriptures and evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have made multiple claims in this thread. As I said before, just stating "I haven't made any claims" doesn't make it true when I and others can clearly see you making claims.
I mean, this is just getting silly.

I am pointing out that others have noticed as well. Despite your protestations that you aren't making any claims.
Well, if you're not making claims, for some reason, there are a bunch of people here thinking you've done just that. I wonder why that is?

That would be because you are making claims. Non-atheists have pointed this out as well, if that makes you feel any better.

Yeah, it must be the Big Bad Atheists' fault.

Yes, I can tell you've been trying to avoid the burden of proof since the beginning of this thread. Which I guess is why you have to keep claiming that you're not making any claims when you actually are. Sorry, but it's not the Big Bad Atheists' fault that you can't back up your claims. That falls on you.

I have made no claims, I have only stated my beliefs.

I have nothing to CLAIM since I am nobody. Do you have any logical abilities whatsoever? How can I make a claim if I have nothing to claim that I did?

I have no burden of proof because I am not trying to prove anything.

Atheists have the BURDEN to do their own research if they want to know the truth about God.
Obviously they don't because they don't want to lift a finger. They expect believers prove things to them so they won't have to DO anything. I consider that lazy.