Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?

[Trailblazer]

What if God is already here, and no one knows it? That seems to me to be an interesting question...

I was being facetious. I meant if God literally "showed up" in person, which is impossible, because God is not a person.
Yes, God is here right now, given God is omnipresent.

 

[Trailblazer]

It appears to me that an assumption being made here is that the Bible has the last word. I am not sure of that assumption.

I am sure that assumption is wrong, because there have been three revelations from God since the NT was written; the Qur'an, and the Writings of the Bab and the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

But doesn't it follow though that in order to actually know this about God, one would also have to be all knowing and all wise, or else how could one actually know a God is such? Since no one we are aware of in the vast concourse of human history approaches anywhere near these two ideals, doesn't it follow that they are just a myth invented by someone who wants to make a Superman of God? Simply quoting a holy book that says so doesn't make it so, because that is just yet again, someone's opinion, or hope. But that has nothing to do with what is real does it? There is literally no way to ever know if that kind of God even could exist, let alone actually does so.

The way we know the attributes of God is from what the Manifestations of God reveal about God. These I normally call Messengers because they bring messages from God. They are not ordinary men, they are not human and divine, so they can bridge the gap of understanding between humans and an ineffable God.

The Manifestations of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.

Every Manifestation of God is a mirror of God, reflecting God’s Self, God’s Beauty, God’s Might and Glory. All other human beings are to be regarded as mirrors capable of reflecting the glory of these Manifestations Who are themselves the Primary Mirrors of the Divine Being.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well the question before this question appears to me to be why would we even need one God? Of course, the question before even that is what is God and how is it defined? And is there actual evidence of the definition or is it wishful thinking? Just musing with you...

Yes, whether we need God or not would depend upon on how we define God, but God is indefinable. We can know some attributes of God, but God is above all His attributes.
The evidence that there is a God are the Manifestations of God (Messengers) as they are God's Representatives on Earth. Since they represent God, they explain why we need God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I read David and Marjorie Haight "The Scandal of Reason" University Press, 2004 4 times last year because it was so profound to me at the time. In it, the Haights demonstrate with absolutely impeccable logic and evidence that one can just as much prove the Devil is the only supernatural being as God is. They simply turned Anselm's proofs and arguments on their head and used the exact same reasoning as Anselm did for God, only they did it for the devil instead. The reason I bring this up is for this: there cannot be any kind of proof for God. It simply is a discussion and talking points. ALL arguments for God end up being circular. That was one of the singular most stunning revelations I have ever had in my life. I would sincerely suggest you avail yourself of this massive tome and read it carefully to see a phenomenal new insight into the idea, as it were, of God, and all that it entails. I promise, if nothing else, a rip roaring good time for your mind for a month or two as you get through this incredibly well written and well thought out text.

No, as I have been saying to atheists for over five years, there is no proof of God. There could only be proof of God is God decided to provide proof of His existence, but God has never done so so there is no reason to think God ever will...

I know God exists but I do not need proof because I have good evidence. But I would never want to see God or hear His Voice. God is just too powerful. I prefer to have God remain a mystery; as long as I know a few of His attributes and His will for humanity, that is all I need to know. No doubt in the afterlife I will know more about God but it won't be much more.

As a Baha'i, I do not believe that there is a Devil. I believe that Satan is symbolic for the lower selfish nature of man.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

As a Baha'i, I do not believe that there is a Devil. I believe that Satan is symbolic for the lower selfish nature of man.

So why isn't God simply then the opposite, the symbol for the higher nature in man?!

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

The evidence that there is a God are the Manifestations of God (Messengers) as they are God's Representatives on Earth. Since they represent God, they explain why we need God.

God doing this Himself/Herself would be vastly superior to this man made excuse for why he doesn't. Messengers are so infantile a way for God to proceed that it appears to me to be utterly inept on His/Her part. It truly makes no sense whatsoever to me. I come out of Mormonism, and believe me, this is their message as well. I just don't buy it. It is fine if you do, no biggie to me, but give me God or give me nothing is my motto. I want it direct, not through some third party much lesser system that is riddled with errors and problems. Surely an all wise God can find a much better way to do it. That he doesn't leaves much to be desired about Him/Her.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

he Manifestations of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.

Every Manifestation of God is a mirror of God, reflecting God’s Self, God’s Beauty, God’s Might and Glory. All other human beings are to be regarded as mirrors capable of reflecting the glory of these Manifestations Who are themselves the Primary Mirrors of the Divine Being.

I have been reading Alan Watts some this year, and he is in a similar line as this. Though he would include mankind in the category of having a universal mind, only we don't know it, hence the reason Zen is such a direct discipline to wake us up. There appears to be no reason to split hairs and make unnecessary categories of different types of being, when in fact, according to some kinds of Buddhism there are no different type. The many is the One, just in its many different manifestations. A most stimulating and interesting point of view I must admit! Good talking with you my friend.

 

[Trailblazer]

So why isn't God simply then the opposite, the symbol for the higher nature in man?!

It is kind of that way. Man is made in the image and likeness of God so we have the potential to reflect God's attributes. If we reflect God's attributes then we are living according to our higher noble nature.

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60

THE TWO NATURES IN MAN

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

I am sure that assumption is wrong, because there have been three revelations from God since the NT was written; the Qur'an, and the Writings of the Bab and the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

I don't believe any of that, so it's not satisfactory evidence to me. Sorry. No offense intended.

 

[Trailblazer]

God doing this Himself/Herself would be vastly superior to this man made excuse for why he doesn't. Messengers are so infantile a way for God to proceed that it appears to me to be utterly inept on His/Her part. It truly makes no sense whatsoever to me. I come out of Mormonism, and believe me, this is their message as well. I just don't buy it. It is fine if you do, no biggie to me, but give me God or give me nothing is my motto. I want it direct, not through some third party much lesser system that is riddled with errors and problems. Surely an all wise God can find a much better way to do it. That he doesn't leaves much to be desired about Him/Her.

That will never happen because God does not communicate directly with anyone except Manifestations of God who are a protected source for that communication since they have a divine nature. Jesus was one such Manifestation but no leaders within the Christian religion or Mormonism can claim that, not even Joseph Smith, because he was a seer, not a Prophet of God.

If God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, God knows the best way to communicate to humans and since God does not communicate directly to humans we can deduce that is not the best way. That is simple logic. What humans want does not matter. God only does what He wants to do.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

It is kind of that way. Man is made in the image and likeness of God so we have the potential to reflect God's attributes. If we reflect God's attributes then we are living according to our higher noble nature.

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60

THE TWO NATURES IN MAN

I think Buddhism makes it much simpler and direct than all this hype about how many different natures man has. Man has only one nature, the Divine. Buddhism says of the Ground of all Being, Brahman, Thou Art That. That makes vastly more economic sense than coming up with all kinds of different levels, and natures, and types of divinity and humanity and whatnot. There is only one kind of existence, the Divine, and all of us are it. That is the electrifying ideas Alan Watts described in his various books, the most recent of which I can and will heartily recommend is "Out of Your Mind." I suspect being a Bahai, there will be much that resonates with you in Watt's writings.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't believe any of that, so it's not satisfactory evidence to me. Sorry. No offense intended.

No offense taken. I'm used to it.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

That will never happen because God does not communicate directly with anyone except Manifestations of God who are a protected source for that communication since they have a divine nature. Jesus was one such Manifestation but no leaders within the Christian religion or Mormonism can claim that, not even Joseph Smith, because he was a seer, not a Prophet of God.

Buddhism simply cuts to the chase and says we all are the Divine only don't recognize it. That is what Zen attempts to do for us. Separateness is the illusion based on which level of magnification we operate under. Again, Alan Watts is quite fascinating on these things to consider. His book "Become What You Are," is also a stunningly fun and delightful book. I also enjoy immensely his numerous You Tube video lectures. Not that I think he was the last word on anything, but it is entertaining and quite enlightening for me personally to consider. His down to earth no nonsense approach is utterly awesome to me anyway.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think Buddhism makes it much simpler and direct than all this hype about how many different natures man has. Man has only one nature, the Divine. Buddhism says of the Ground of all Being, Brahman, Thou Art That. That makes vastly more economic sense than coming up with all kinds of different levels, and natures, and types of divinity and humanity and whatnot. There is only one kind of existence, the Divine, and all of us are it. That is the electrifying ideas Alan Watts described in his various books, the most recent of which I can and will heartily recommend is "Out of Your Mind." I suspect being a Bahai, there will be much that resonates with you in Watt's writings.

Buddhism shares many of the spiritual teachings of the Baha'i Faith. I really like the teachings of Buddhism, but I believe that the teachings of Baha'u'llah are intended for this new age, which is the basis of Progressive Revelation.

Here is an article you might like: Buddhism and the Bahá'í Faith

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Thanks! I shall take a look at it...

 

[Trailblazer]

.... you believe.

But we're talking about what attitude people who don't already believe that God exists should take, not the attitude of people who are convinced of God.

What attitude should they take?

I've kept as open a mind as I think the situation dictates, just as I do for any other fantastical claim.

Just because something can't be absolutely disproved in a philosophical sense doesn't mean it's enough of a real possibility that we should adjust our actions in case it's true.

Take an outcome that we know not only might be possible, but definitely is possible: that when you're swimming in the ocean, random fluctuations in salt concentrations in the water will cause an island of salt to crystallize beneath you and carry you out to sea.

This is a real possibility. The odds are extremely low, but we could calculate the probability and it wouldn't be zero.

Unless you can show that your god is at least that likely, why should we pay it any mind at all?

Do you leave yourself open to things you can't disprove?

For instance, maybe sometime in the future, you'll encounter a unicorn who can give you life-changing advice, but only if you befriend it by feeding it licorice gumdrops. How will this claim that you can't disprove inform your actions? Will you start carrying licorice gumdrops just in case?

There is a real possibility that God exists. The odds are extremely high, but we could calculate the probability and it would be near 100%. Sorry, I could not resist. I chide the nonbelievers on my forum all the time and it is reciprocal.

You atheists are more fun than a barrel of monkeys. A side benefit of posting to atheists 24/7 is that maybe someday you will become believers, but I am not holding my breath. There is nothing in it for me, I just care about people. Before I got into religion I was into psychology because I wanted to help people but now I believe the best way to help people is to get them on board the God ship. The danger has always been I would go overboard and become an atheist but if that has not happened yet it probably won’t. I listen to a lot of Christian music to keep my faith up. Baha’is don’t inspire me all that much.

Unless you atheists can show that MY God is not likely, why should I dump Him overboard?

 

[Trailblazer]

And the evidence is of very poor quality and can easily be explained by simpler constructs.

What evidence are you referring to?

Well, that's a claim, but you have even less evidence of this than you do for the existence of any deity.

Why would there be more than one Almighty God? Think about it. Think about what would happen.

 

[Trailblazer]

Right. And, there are potentially people that will be *thought* to be messengers from God even though no God exists.

Right. And, there are potentially people that will be *thought* to be messengers from God if a God exists.

“I see a third possibility:
3. God exists, uses a messenger, and we can determine if the messenger is legitimate if we do careful and thorough research and investigation.”

I'm trying to imagine what sort of evidence would allow that to be the case. So, suppose someone claimed to be a messengers from God, others believed this person to be a messenger from God, this person was able to mesh the different previous stories about God together, this person was able to give sage moral advice, etc.

Would this be evidence that they are a messenger? No. We *first* have to know of the existence of God before we can even address the question of whether any particular person is a messenger. Even an absolutely exemplary person would NOT even be *evidence* of the existence of a God, let alone that this person was a messenger.

But as I said before, the only way to know that God exists is because the Messenger *reveals* God. However, you could go at it from a different angle. You could try presuming that God exists and then look at what the Messenger has to say about God.

But if you were willing to consider the *possibility* that a Messenger spoke for God, you would have to look at ALL the evidence that supports His claim with an open mind, realizing that you have nothing to lose but something to gain.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

My problem is that there are three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence enough to support a belief in that existence.
2. God exists and there is not such evidence.
3. God does not exist.

I really like your list and your conclusions that follow below. Can I share this with the atheists on my forum?

In the case of 1, I would want evidence at least as good as the evidence for dark matter. We don't know what it is, but we know it is there.

I think we can agree that we do NOT have evidence for the existence of God to this degree. If you disagree, please present said evidence.

No, I do not think we have evidence for the existence of God to this degree. We cannot *know* that God is there in any scientific sense and we cannot *know* what God is.

The problem comes in deciding between 2 and 3. As far as I can see, they are observationally equivalent. And that means that 3 wins by default.

But the default position is not always the *right* position. That is why it is wise to look under every rock.

For me, bringing in messengers only complicates the reasoning because you cannot know (or even have evidence) that someone is a messenger unless you *previously* know there is an entity to be a messenger from.

I think you would have to understand more about the two *stations* of Messengers of God, at least the concept and what it means to be a Messenger of God. A Messenger of God is not just a human being, because an ordinary human being cannot receive messages from God.

Messengers of God, what Baha’is normally refer to as Manifestations of God, possess two stations: one is the physical station pertaining to the world of matter, and the others is the spiritual station, born of the substance of God. In other words, one station is that of a human being, and one, of the Divine Reality. It is because they possess both a human and a divine station that they can act as *mediators* between God and man.

Every Manifestation of God is a mirror of God, reflecting God’s Self, God’s Beauty, God’s Might and Glory. All other human beings are to be regarded as mirrors capable of reflecting the glory of these Manifestations Who are themselves the Primary Mirrors of the Divine Being.

The Manifestations of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.

Think of it like this. Suppose some person suddenly announces that they are a messenger transmitting a message from a civilization in a distant star system. Why would you believe them? Well, if they could *point* to the star system, that would be a very good first step. If they gave information that only someone from that star system could know, that would be helpful. But if they only gave commonly (or even uncommonly) known *human* knowledge, then we could reasonably reject their claims.

In short, I would *never* believe that anyone claiming to be a Messenger from God unless I thoroughly researched His claim and looked at *all* the evidence that supports it. This is exactly what Baha’u’llah has enjoined us to do.

“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

Actually, that book I cited is a very good book, one of the first books about the Baha’i Faith I read. That brings me to another thought. I did not join the Baha’i Faith because of God, I joined because of the teachings. I was not searching for God or a religion, I just stumbled upon it. I did not think much about whether God existed, I just assumed He did, but that had no real meaning to me until about six years ago when I started to read what Baha’u’llah wrote about God. Then a light went off inside my head and I *knew* God existed. That was in June 2014, and I never looked back. I have been on a constant search to know more about God and His significance to my life.

So that’s my little story.

 

[Trailblazer]

So instead, it's only somewhat unjust?

No, that is not what I meant. It is just even though it does not always seem that way while we are still on this side of the great divide.