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

[Truthseeker]

Then I hope this doesn't offend you, but if you can't present it, then it's no different than if you didn't have it.

It doesn't offend me, but it is bull****.

 

[Truthseeker]

It doesn't offend me, but it is bull****.

Sorry, I guess that needed editing, I used the actual word where there are four asterisks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't offend me, but it is bull****.

Why is that bull****?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I guess that needed editing, I used the actual word where there are four asterisks.

Not to worry. It is a feature of the website. Most 'nasty' words are replaced with asterisks. Though it is amazingly blind at times. For example:

Belgium!

 

[Trailblazer]

Again with the excuses.

If something is an objective fact, they will reach the same conclusion no matter what their perspective is.

One does not get different values for the height of the Eiffel Tower simply because they have different perspectives. One's perspective does not change the length of time it takes for Mercury to orbit the sun.

Religion is not science so different people will view a religious belief differently. People are not going to view the objective facts of the Baha'i Faith the same way. Some people will think these facts mean Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God and some people will think they mean nothing. How they will view the evidence all depends upon that person's childhood upbringing, education, and life experiences to date.

Bringing up scientific things is the red herring fallacy as well as the fallacy of false equivalence. The reason I know so many fallacies is because so many atheists commit them so I have learned over many years what they are

As long as you continue to commit the fallacy of false equivalence by conflating science and religion I cannot reach your mind. It is hopeless.

Something that is actually real and exists outside of the people measuring it. Something for which testable evidence can be shown.

I believe spiritual truth and God are real and exist but there is no testable evidence.

So you are trying to measure the realness of it. You are measuring whether it exists in reality.

I am not measuring whether it exists in reality, I am determining whether it exists in reality.

I do remember you posting once that you only seek the evidence that supports your belief. Sadly, I can't find that post at the moment.

I vaguely remember that but you misunderstood what I was saying so there is no use covering it again.

Why would I seek evidence that did not support my belief if I was investigating my belief? That would be like a Christian looking at the Qur'an to support their belief. It is patently illogical. A Christian is going to look at the Bible because that is the evidence that supports a belief in Christianity.

That's not what I asked though, was it?

Does the Baha'i faith itself specify any criteria?

Yes, but there is no list. You would have to read about the true Messengers and see how they met the criteria.

Of course, wind and light can be independently measured. God cannot. If you and I are in the same place, we will agree on what the wind is, whether it is strong or weak, warm or cold. We will agree on what the light is, whether it is bright or dark, white or coloured.

But such agreement about God is impossible.

You are absolutely correct, so where so we go from here? Why would agreement be necessary?

And in doing so you were saying that I am blind or otherwise not good enough to reach the same conclusion that you have reached - a conclusion that you conclude MUST be true because you can't imagine that you are wrong. (I mean, you certainly haven't reached your conclusion because you have evidence for it.)

No, I a,m not saying you are blind, I am saying you are different. Because of all the factors that make you who you are, you will not see the same thing that I see. I believe my conclusion is true because of the evidence.

You know I was a believer for about 20 years, right?

What is it with believers, they always think that anyone who doesn't share their faith has just not been doing it right. And if they do it the right way, all of a sudden, they'll become believers in an instant. What is up with that?

How did you come to your belief and why did you relinquish it>?

That's good. I used to think that Baha'i was a fairly sensible faith. You've certainly corrected that impression!

I am not responsible for your impression of the Baha'i Faith. I am just one person and I would not say I am a typical Baha'i, and debating atheists is not a typical Bahai activity. You should judge the Baha'i Faith by its teachings, not by the Baha'is, since humans are imperfect.

 

[Trailblazer]

It doesn't offend me, but it is bull****.

That's right Duane, it is that biggest pile of crap I have seen in years. Some atheists are so illogical, they think we can post all the evidence for the Baha'i Faith on a forum post. That just shows that they have no conception of just how much evidence there is. If you can't show it you don't have it is also completely illogical because a person can have something and not choose to show it. For example, I could have a new car but not want to show it to you, but that does not mean I do not actually HAVE the car. What this is really about is atheists wanting us to do their homework for them so they won't have to do their own homework.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what? That doesn't mean religion is correct, only that it can be used to manipulate and control people. And I won't argue with that.

Religion can be used to benefit people or it can be used to manipulate and control people.

I'm not debating the historical facts here, am I? I have never said that Mr B didn't exist, I have never said he didn't do or say the things you tell me he did and said.

The convoluted bit was how you have to come up with excuses to get it to fit into all the messengers you claim have come before.

We are not trying to get it to fit into all the previous Messengers. Just because we believe in the Messenger that came before that does not mean they fit with the Baha'i Faith. As Jesus said, you cannot put old wine in new wine sacs lest they burst the sacs.

If you present it as the truth, then it's a claim.

No, it is only a claim if someone is claiming something. All of the Writings of Baha'u'llah are not claims but I believe they are all truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

A belief is simply ACCEPTING that the claim is correct. Mr B made the claims, you accepted them, and that is as far as you can go while keeping it nothing more than a belief. But you don't just accept them, you say in the thread that they are the case.

When you say that your beliefs are true, you are stating that they are the case, thus making them claims. Considering that you present them as true while not providing any evidence or proof of them, they fit the definition very well.

Please show me where I said that my beliefs are the case or I said they are true. I said I believe they are true.

I have provided evidence, you just don't like it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In my life, everything I've ever known of fits into both categories or neither category. Everything I have ever seen that is real has also been true. Everything that has been true has also been real.

The chair I am sitting in is real, and the chair is a true thing. Klingons are not real, and Klingons are not true things.

Of course, if you know of something that is real but NOT true, or something that is true but not real, please tell me. I'd love to hear about it.

Okay, I will use real, but it also applies to your truth.

Now that which is imagined is not real, right? But it is real, that you can imagine something. So now do something real, imagine a pond. In the pond are 2 ducks, a real duck and a non-real duck, since it is a decoy duck, but it is a real decoy duck.

So here it is in somewhat fancy words. Truth and real are cultural words, which are norms for saying that someone have trust in and accepts. They are cognitive judgments about comparison of different ways of thinking about different experiences.
But for the problem of justification of what you claim that you can justify in regards to the problems in epistemology, that is something else.
So you have this problem:

It is true and real according to your true and real, that my true and real are not true and real, but it is true and real I can think and act different than you and indeed I have do so with this post. So is limited cognitive relativism true and real? Or are you the only true and real source of how to understand the world and I am not true and real?

 

[samtonga43]

Maybe the fact that it is not in any of the Christian teachings.

Ah! I wonder how all those scientists who are Christian live with the 'fact' that it is not in any of the Christian teachings?
BTW, when you say 'Christian teachings' what do you mean? I ask because many many scientists who are Christian teach on the beautiful interaction of science and faith.

Christians cannot claim Baha'i teachings just to try to compete.

False Assumption (Logic 101)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Religion is not science so different people will view a religious belief differently. People are not going to view the objective facts of the Baha'i Faith the same way. Some people will think these facts mean Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God and some people will think they mean nothing. How they will view the evidence all depends upon that person's childhood upbringing, education, and life experiences to date. Bringing up scientific things is the red herring fallacy as well as the fallacy of false equivalence. The reason I know so many fallacies is because so many atheists commit them so I have learned over many years what they are As long as you continue to commit the fallacy of false equivalence by conflating science and religion I cannot reach your mind. It is hopeless.

Isn't this the crux of the matter concerning what evidence can convince a skeptic that a god exists? You seem to think that there are multiple ways to view evidence. which is correct, but you also think that they are all equally valid, that there is no such thing that one is correct and the others not. That's false equivalency.

And that's the difference between the theists here and the atheists. The theists find the evidence offered inadequate to support theism. They simply have a different way of understanding what evidence implies and what it does not. You offer the writings of Baha'u'llah as evidence that he speaks for a god. You look at those words, that life and the history of the Baha'i religion, and see that a compelling indicator that a god must have had a hand in writing them. But the atheists look at those things and don't see anything that seems superhuman.

The Christians make the same claims for their religion. They tell us that scripture is proof of God, but experienced critical thinkers all agree that it is merely proof that somebody wrote those words, because they seem human. Likewise with the life of Jesus - "surely this was the Son of God." Uh, no. I was a the life of an itinerant religious fundamentalist who said nothing that human beings don't say. Remove the miracles, and this was an undistinguished life while it was being lived, later promoted into a religion by others after Jesus was gone.

None of this is convincing, which frustrates the theists, who see the atheist's bar for evidence too high, while the atheist sees the believer's bar set too low.

Also, I don't accept the idea that there are two different criteria for truth, and one for what we can experience and one for the kinds of things that people believe by faith. The claims that you can't use science, and don't expect evidence is really telling me that what is believed if probably false, and even if was a correct guess, that's all it was. You call it false equivalence t have a single standard, I call it special pleading to have a double standard for these.

But you are correct that for as long as the skeptics are going to use the same criteria for truth in all areas where truth claims are made, you cannot reach them by asking them to relax their standards, or by calling it the logical fallacy of false equivalence when they won't.

***********

Here's something I found a few years ago, and have modified a bit since. If you'd like to see the original video, try this

If you'd rather read a transcript of that video, try this: The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists - Daylight Atheism (patheos.com)

Frankly, most of what is called convincing here wouldn't convince me. I offer this list because everything offered in this thread as evidence of a god fits in the unconvincing category. That's apparent by the fact that you have convinced no atheist to agree with you.

Most of the following falls below my bar for convincing evidence of a god or a true religion, since most of it could be accomplished by advanced alien species (as Clarke said, any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic). I wouldn't separate conclusive and highly suggestive evidence, and I might take out the word highly, leaving just two categories: suggestive and unconvincing.

Look at where the evidence you and the other theists here offer falls on this scale. You might put your religion's writings in number [6], since they convinced you to believe, but I don't see anything in those words that a man or men couldn't have written unaided:

THINGS THAT WOULD CONVINCE AN ATHEIST THAT A PARTICULAR RELIGION IS THE TRUE RELIGION.

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE

[1] Any direct, irrefutable manifestation of the divine, such as being spoken to by the deity in the presence of multiple, reliable witnesses

[2] Bona fide miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.

If glowing auras of holy light sometimes appeared around believers to protect them from harm, or atheists and only atheists were regularly struck by lightning, or only patients prayed for by members of a specific religion in a repeatable, placebo-controlled, prospective, double blinded study recovered better

[3] High quality prophecy fulfilled.

Criteria for a true prophecy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies#Criteria_for_a_true_prophecy
For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.

2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical foreknowledge definitionally can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.

3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.

4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.

5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. Ideas of the time don't count

HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE

[4] High quality scientific knowledge in holy books that was not available at the time.

The knowledge must be in detail and be about something counterintuitive like relativity or quantum mechanics, not merely mentioning in the broadest strokes of atoms, heliocentrism or evolution:" My disciples, I say unto thee that energy is mass times the speed of light multiplied unto itself." Of course, this could have come from a prior alien visitation.

[5] Aliens who believe the exact same religion

[Hidingfromyou offered this: "Number [5] is problematic and leads to possible deception by aliens who want your resources. If I were a conquering band of aliens with very limited tech, I'd pretend to engage in the major religions of the planet I was about quash." I thought that she was right about invading aliens, but not aliens that we found and visited. If we found them, and I were certain that they had had Christian bibles for centuries, I'd be convinced.]

[6] A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book. From Ingersoll: "It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce."

[7] A religion without internal disputes of factions

[8] A religion whose followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities

NOT CONVINCING

[9] Pseudo-miracles such as alleged miracle cures, speaking in tongues or other, or seeing the deity in a piece of toast.

[10] Any subjective experience such as people's conversion stories, reports of near-death experiences, or reports of messages from the deity

[11] Pseudo-science such as "intelligent design" and creationism

[12] Bible Code or similar numerological feats

[13] Citing scripture authoritatively
​

 

[CG Didymus]

My faith does have criteria

Does the Baha'i faith itself specify any criteria?

Yes, but there is no list. You would have to read about the true Messengers and see how they met the criteria.

Criteria for being a manifestation? Just with the one, being a perfectly polished mirror, eliminates Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses from the list. Maybe great men of God and Patriarchs of Judaism, but I don't see how Baha'is can call them "perfectly polished mirrors." Plus, not to mention, were they real, historical people?

 

[Sheldon]

Why is that bull****?

Now now, you know the rules of debating theists, and religious apologists, no direct and embarrassing questions please. ...but since you asked, yes I am also curious as well...

Or can I stop debating theists and simply label all their unevidenced assertions as bullshi*?

 

[Sheldon]

Religion is not science

Neither are claims for mermaids, or unicorns?

the objective facts of the Baha'i Faith

You have or other adherents of your beliefs have presented a single fact, objective or otherwise, to support your beliefs.

Bringing up scientific things is the red herring fallacy as well as the fallacy of false equivalence. The reason I know so many fallacies is because so many atheists commit them so I have learned over many years what they are

Irony overload, as you offer here a bare claim, and of course your rhetoric has involved known logical fallacies throughout, as it does here again?

As long as you continue to commit the fallacy of false equivalence by conflating science and religion I cannot reach your mind. It is hopeless.

I believe spiritual truth and God are real and exist but there is no testable evidence.

I am not measuring whether it exists in reality, I am determining whether it exists in reality.

I vaguely remember that but you misunderstood what I was saying so there is no use covering it again.

Why would I seek evidence that did not support my belief

A Christian is going to look at the Bible because that is the evidence that supports a belief in Christianity.

 

[Truthseeker]

That's right Duane, it is that biggest pile of crap I have seen in years. Some atheists are so illogical, they think we can post all the evidence for the Baha'i Faith on a forum post. That just shows that they have no conception of just how much evidence there is. If you can't show it you don't have it is also completely illogical because a person can have something and not choose to show it. For example, I could have a new car but not want to show it to you, but that does not mean I do not actually HAVE the car. What this is really about is atheists wanting us to do their homework for them so they won't have to do their own homework.

I fibbed a little bit, it did offend me some. Furthermore, I didn't put those asterisks there for bull****, I think a moderator did that. I hadn't read all the rules for here.

 

[Sheldon]

they think we can post all the evidence for the Baha'i Faith on a forum post.

Well that's a lie, but it is reasonable to expect you to offer a shred of objective evidence for your claims, and you have not.

That just shows that they have no conception of just how much evidence there is.

Argument from assertion fallacy.

If you can't show it you don't have it is also completely illogical because a person can have something and not choose to show it.

Yes it makes sense that would repeatedly claim to have evidence, but decline to show it, please.... I have objective evidence you're wrong....but oh oh oh I'm not going to show it obviously, as you have set the rules...what a spectacularly silly thing to claim.

For example, I could have a new car but not want to show it to you, but that does not mean I do not actually HAVE the car.

False equivalence fallacy

We have sufficient objective evidence cars exist, your ball...

What this is really about is atheists wanting us to do their homework for them so they won't have to do their own homework.

It is your claim a deity exists, it is asinine to assert those who question that unevidenced belief have to disprove it, asinine and irrational, as it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

Now that which is imagined is not real, right?

How are you defining real?

 

[Trailblazer]

Criteria for being a manifestation? Just with the one, being a perfectly polished mirror, eliminates Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses from the list. Maybe great men of God and Patriarchs of Judaism, but I don't see how Baha'is can call them "perfectly polished mirrors." Plus, not to mention, were they real, historical people?

How do you KNOW that Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses were not perfectly polished mirrors, and what does that even mean? It could mean different things to different people depending upon how they interpret it. Do you see the problem? The other problem is that you have to choose: Are you going to believe what the Bible says or are you going to believe what Baha'u'llah wrote? Which rendition of these Prophets do YOU believe is more accurate, scriptures written over 3000 years ago by unnamed men or scriptures written 150 years ago by Baha'u'llah in His own pen?

 

[Trailblazer]

You have or other adherents of your beliefs have presented a single fact, objective or otherwise, to support your beliefs.

I have presented facts that surround the Life and Mission of Baha'u'llah as evidence of my beliefs. These are historical facts.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well that's a lie, but it is reasonable to expect you to offer a shred of objective evidence for your claims, and you have not.

Yes it makes sense that would repeatedly claim to have evidence, but decline to show it, please....

I guess you like to provide free advertising for the Baha'i Faith by asking me to post the evidence over and over again, after I have already posted it, but no matter since it is a simple copy/paste from my Word document.

Below is a list of the primary categories of evidence that support the claims of Baha'u'llah.

1. His character (His qualities).

That can be determined by reading about Him in books such as the following:
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

2. His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth, i,e., the history of the Baha'i Faith).

That can be determined by reading about His mission in books such as the following:
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

3. His Writings which can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

4. Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies that refer to the return of Christ and the promised Messiah. That proves to me He was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book:
William Sears, Thief in the Night

5. Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

It is your claim a deity exists, it is asinine to assert those who question that unevidenced belief have to disprove it, asinine and irrational, as it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

I do not ASSERT that a deity exists because I could never prove it.... all I have is evidence that indicates it.