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

[mikkel_the_dane]

Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, you can't have your own logic, that's an oxymoron.

Evidence is a much maligned word, and yes that IS my opinion. Judged from the number of posters here who keep asserting a bare claim is evidence?

Yeah ,we would be wrong, right?
Well, the problem is that not all forms of non-moral wrong kills you or give you a non-life.

So there is a limit to non-moral wrong, in that some forms are part of how the world works.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

Agreed the substance of the Claim is the evidence that supports it, so the proof of the Claim will support the validity of the Claim.

We know Santa clause is mostly a fabrication because of thr evidence, but the Claim had a source. We know the story has some truth, but many aspects are also a deception. Not sure why someone morphed such a good story about a Holy Day of Jesus to include such deception.

Regards Tony

 

[Sheldon]

yet to be tested by science.

https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/some-answered-questions/8#394598598

I'm sorry but that's hilarious, the way you included the word science in your claim, it has no scientific basis whatsoever. Like claiming I've seen a mermaid, but the "evidence" has yet to be examined by science.

Let's take a look...


the vegetable spirit,110 which is the power that results from the composition and combination of the elements according to the wisdom and decree of the Most High, and from their mutual arrangement as well as their influence upon, and their interconnection with, other created things.
(Some Answered Questions)
www.bahai.org/r/523546064

Meaningless woo woo word salad sorry, "vegetable spirit", that's hilarious. I just slaughtered some mushrooms, I do hope their "spirit" was saved.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are the one who does not know the difference. I won't be explaining it again, because it is clearly delineated in this post: #1597 Trailblazer

The Bible contains claims but it is also the evidence that supports the claims. Sorry you don't like it.

Well, yes. some forms of subjective evidence, but that is not what atheists ask for. They ask for another kind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The energy behind creation is the Spirit, have a read of this and consider if it is viable, but yet to be tested by science.

https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/some-answered-questions/8#394598598

Thank you for a balanced answer.

Regards Tony

I skimmed it; nothing popped out as testable.

I'm not going to read the whole thing in detail; how about you briefly summarize what you think is the testable claim here?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, yes. some forms of subjective evidence, but that is not what atheists ask for. They ask for another kind.

There is objective evidence that supports the claims of Baha'u'llah but it will be viewed subjectively.

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah ,we would be wrong, right?
Well, the problem is that not all forms of non-moral wrong kills you or give you a non-life.

So there is a limit to non-moral wrong, in that some forms are part of how the world works.

I don't know what the phrase "non-moral wrong" means sorry? I'm also unfamiliar with the phrase "non-life"?

if a bare claim is evidence, then the word loses it's meaning for me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is objective evidence that supports the claims of Baha'u'llah but it will be viewed subjectively.

Yeah, we understand the words differently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know what the phrase "non-moral wrong" means sorry? I'm also unfamiliar with the phrase "non-life"?

if a bare claim is evidence, then the word loses it's meaning for me.

Wrong:
Definition of WRONG

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm sorry but that's hilarious, the way you included the word science in your claim, it has no scientific basis whatsoever. Like claiming I've seen a mermaid, but the "evidence" has yet to be examined by science.

Let's take a look...


the vegetable spirit,110 which is the power that results from the composition and combination of the elements according to the wisdom and decree of the Most High, and from their mutual arrangement as well as their influence upon, and their interconnection with, other created things.
(Some Answered Questions)
www.bahai.org/r/523546064

Meaningless woo woo word salad sorry, "vegetable spirit", that's hilarious. I just slaughtered some mushrooms, I do hope their "spirit" was saved.

I wish you all the best Sheldon. May a life without contemplation of the Spirit be rewarding and happy for you and all that see it that way.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I skimmed it; nothing popped out as testable.

I'm not going to read the whole thing in detail; how about you briefly summarize what you think is the testable claim here?

I say if it is not of interest, then leave it be.

It is worth considering that science now knows that trees communucate with each other. That the vegetable kingdom does have an intelligence. I will let you consider if that is connected to the vegetable spirit, that the talk explained.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, we understand the words differently.

That happens.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I say if it is not of interest, then leave it be.

It is worth considering that science now knows that trees communucate with each other.

Yes - we know this because it's testable, and because we were able to identify a mechanism by which they communicate.

What's the mechanism that would allow the soul to exist?

That the vegetable kingdom does have an intelligence.

That's a stretch.

I will let you consider if that is connected to the vegetable spirit, that the talk explained.

I see no reason to assume a "vegetable spirit."

 

[Truthseeker]

Unfortunately we have 99% of the same DNA

I have to answer this one out of your diatribe. In one of my selections it specifically said that genetics showed there was no "parallel" evolution. Yes, we share 99% genetic material, there is no denial of that. I think you missed that, perhaps.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see no reason to assume a "vegetable spirit."

Whereas I personaly have found reason based in logical and rational proof, of the spiritual connection to life.

Such is the quandary of life.

Regards Tony

 

[Truthseeker]

HE said "aether differentiates between things that are "perceptible to the senses" and those which are "realities of the intellect" and not perceptible to the senses."

realities of the intellect include - heat, light and electricity and ethereal matter?
No ether separates those things from heat, electricity and light?

Funny how he has to wait until scientists figure it out. Never does he get a revelation that there is no ether but there is spacetime full of fields and virtual particles and light speed is constant in either direction (they measured light speed to test the ether). And light remains constant even when in motion because time slows down...........

You do realize these these papers you are quoting from are apologetics? People who are in the religion are taking things said and attempting to reconcile ways that they can still be correct. Or attempting to make them not wrong.

The passage I was thinking about is this:

The other kind of human knowledge is that of intelligible things; that is, it consists of intelligible realities which have no outward form or place and which are not sensible. For example, the power of the mind is not sensible, nor are any of the human attributes: These are intelligible realities. Love, likewise, is an intelligible and not a sensible reality. For the ear does not hear these realities, the eye does not see them, the smell does not sense them, the taste does not detect them, the touch does not perceive them. Even the ether, the forces of which are said in natural philosophy to be heat, light, electricity, and magnetism, is an intelligible and not a sensible reality. Likewise, nature itself is an intelligible and not a sensible reality; the human spirit is an intelligible and not a sensible reality.
(Some Answered Questions)
www.bahai.org/r/898497121

There's more:

If we were to deny all that is not accessible to the senses, then we would be forced to deny realities which undoubtedly exist. For example, the ether is not sensible, although its reality can be proven. The power of gravity is not sensible, although its existence is likewise undeniable. Whence do we affirm their existence? From their signs. For instance, this light consists in the vibrations of the ether, and from these vibrations we infer its existence.
(Some Answered Questions)
www.bahai.org/r/731006642

I found this one also just now:

Similarly in the world of being there exist forces unseen of the eye, such as the force of ether previously mentioned, that cannot be sensed, that cannot be seen. However, from the effects it produceth, that is from its waves and vibrations, light, heat, electricity appear and are made evident. In like manner is the power of growth, of feeling, of understanding, of thought, of memory, of imagination and of discernment; all these inner faculties are unseen of the eye and cannot be sensed, yet all are evident by the effects they produce.
(Tablet to Dr. Auguste Forel)
www.bahai.org/r/283751965

Here's one:

With reference to your question about the “ether,” the various definitions of this word as given in the Oxford English Dictionary all refer to a physical reality, for instance, “an element,” “a substance,” “a medium,” all of which imply a physical and objective reality and, as you say, this was the concept posited by nineteenth century scientists to explain the propagation of light waves. It would have been understood in this sense by the audiences whom ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá was addressing. However, in Chapter XVI of Some Answered Questions, ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá devotes a whole chapter to explaining the difference between things which are “perceptible to the senses” which He calls “objective or sensible,” and realities of the “intellect” which have “no outward form and no place,” and are “not perceptible to the senses.” He gives examples of both “kinds” of “human knowledge.” The first kind is obvious and does not need elaboration. To illustrate the second kind the examples He gives are: love, grief, happiness, the power of the intellect, the human spirit and “ethereal matter.” (In the original Persian the word “ethereal” is the same as “etheric.”) He states clearly that “Even ethereal matter, the forces of which are said in physics to be heat, light, electricity and magnetism, is an intellectual reality, and is not sensible.” In other words, the “ether” is a concept arrived at intellectually to explain certain phenomena. In due course, when scientists failed to confirm the physical existence of the “ether” by delicate experiments, they constructed other intellectual concepts to explain the same phenomena.
(3 June 1982 – [To individuals])
www.bahai.org/r/317882456

As to not disclosing the Physics you described, there was no reason for 'Abdu'l-Baha to talk about them, these references to ether were analogies to explain philosophical or spiritual subjects. The Baha'i Faith is not the domain of science. He may even have been using the understanding of the audience to explicate these subjects, whether they were right or wrong. The same is true in general in the Writings.

It may well be that we shall find some statement is couched in terms familiar to the audience to which it was first addressed, but is strange now to us. For example, in answer to a question about Bahá’u’lláh’s reference to the “fourth heaven” in the Kitáb-i-Íqán, the Guardian’s secretary wrote on his behalf:

As to the ascent of Christ to the fourth heaven, as revealed in the glorious “Book of Íqán,” he [the Guardian] stated that the “fourth heaven” is a term used and a belief held by the early astronomers. The followers of the Shí‘ih sect likewise held this belief. As the Kitáb-i-Íqán was revealed for the guidance of that sect, this term was used in conformity with the concepts of its followers.
(Translated from the Arabic)
(3 June 1982 – [To individuals])
www.bahai.org/r/068001439

This all looks like baseless apologetics to you, but there are many evidences of the Baha'i Faith of which these seeming contradictions are a drop in the bucket. The evidence in favor of the Baha'i Faith, in my opinion, is overwhelming.

 

[Truthseeker]

This has been answered in some detail by the Universal House of Justice. I am only posting this because it has become a discussion that needs this clarification.

People can choose to read it if they are so inclined to do so.

"With reference to your question about the “ether,” the various definitions of this word as
given in the Oxford English Dictionary all refer to a physical reality, for instance, “an
element,” “a substance,” “a medium,” all of which imply a physical and objective reality
and, as you say, this was the concept posited by nineteenth century scientists to explain
the propagation of light waves. It would have been understood in this sense by the
audiences whom ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá was addressing. However, in Chapter XVI of Some
Answered Questions, ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá devotes a whole chapter to explaining the difference
between things which are “perceptible to the senses” which He calls “objective or
sensible,” and realities of the “intellect” which have “no outward form and no place,” and
are “not perceptible to the senses.” He gives examples of both “kinds” of “human
knowledge.” The first kind is obvious and does not need elaboration. To illustrate the
second kind the examples He gives are: love, grief, happiness, the power of the intellect,
the human spirit and “ethereal matter.” (In the original Persian the word “ethereal” is the
same as “etheric.”) He states clearly that “Even ethereal matter, the forces of which are
said in physics to be heat, light, electricity and magnetism, is an intellectual reality, and is
not sensible.” In other words, the “ether” is a concept arrived at intellectually to explain
certain phenomena. In due course, when scientists failed to confirm the physical
existence of the “ether” by delicate experiments, they constructed other intellectual concepts to explain the same phenomena.
In considering the whole field of divinely conferred “infallibility” one must be careful to avoid the literal understanding and petty-mindedness that has so often characterized discussions of this matter in the Christian world. The Manifestation of God (and, to a lesser degree, ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá and Shoghi Effendi,) has to convey tremendous concepts covering the whole field of human life and
activity to people whose present knowledge and degree of understanding are far below His. He must use the limited medium of human language against the limited and often erroneous background of His audience’s traditional knowledge and current understanding to raise them to a wholly new level of awareness and behavior. It is a human tendency, against which the Manifestation warns us, to measure His statements against the inaccurate standard of the acquired knowledge of mankind. We tend to take them and place them within one or other of the
existing categories of human philosophy or science while, in reality, they transcend these and will, if properly understood, open new and vast horizons to our understanding."

Regards Tony

I just used part of the quotation above. Great minds think alike.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

But you can't actually demonstrate it to anyone.

I believe that you are the deluded one and your Messengers are phony. How do I know? Well, the magical invisible pixies told me. I can't demonstrate to you that they exist though. All I have are claims in a book.

How do we determine whose claims are true?

I suppose one way is to read the history of a Messenger, His life stories, His writings and claims. Then decide for yourself if this Person is a liar or honest just as how a fair, and wise Judge would do in a court after gathering all info and deciding about a case.

 

[samtonga43]

That would be you.
Nice projection though. Gotta show those Big Bad Atheists who's boss.

Don't forget the Big Bad Christians.

 

[Tiberius]

Real is not science as real has no scientific referent.

What are you talking about? Reality can be measured and expressed in scientific terms.