Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[Subduction Zone]

Im damned if I do and damned if I don’t aren’t I?

Pretty much if you cannot support your claims.

I was a strong atheist from the age of 15-20. I remember the Baha’is telling me that they all believed I would never join because I was so opposed to religion and the existence of God. I was wrapped in their views of world brotherhood but the sticking point was they believed in God which I then considered a myth, fallacy and superstition and a crutch to lean on.

So they couldn’t convince me no matter what they said. So I stuck with that belief. What didn’t make sense was how a people so intelligent could possibly believe in such nonsense. They didn’t try to prove anything to me but just let me believe what I wanted.

So I set out on a personal mission to prove God did not exist. I wrote a paper called “Proofs and evidences of the non existence of God” . I came across Christian arguments and the Bible but still wasn’t convinced of anything at all.

Well there's your problem That was a logical error on your part. You allowed theists to shift the burden of proof. You now only have an argument of ignorance for God. What you should have done was to look for evidence for God. One looks for evidence for the positive claim.

It was when I began reading the Writings of Baha’u’llah and Abdul-Baha that it all made sense and I made my own personal discovery and connection with God.

The only way I can try and describe what happened was when I was by myself at home one day reading the Words of Baha’u’llah. The experience is best described by these Words of Baha’u’llah.


“At that hour will the mystic Herald, bearing the joyful tidings of the Spirit, shine forth from the City of God resplendent as the morn, and, through the trumpet-blast of knowledge, will awaken the heart, the soul, and the spirit from the slumber of negligence. Then will the manifold favours and outpouring grace of the holy and everlasting Spirit confer such new life upon the seeker that he will find himself endowed with a new eye, a new ear, a new heart, and a new mind. He will contemplate the manifest signs of the universe, and will penetrate the hidden mysteries of the soul. Gazing with the eye of God, he will perceive within every atom a door that leadeth him to the stations of absolute certitude. He will discover in all things the mysteries of divine Revelation and the evidences of an everlasting manifestation.”

“So great shall be the discernment of this seeker that he will discriminate between truth and falsehood even as he doth distinguish the sun from shadow...

“He will likewise clearly distinguish all the signs of God—His wondrous utterances, His great works, and mighty deeds—from the doings, words and ways of men, even as the jeweller who knoweth the gem from the stone, or the man who distinguisheth the spring from autumn and heat from cold”

“When the channel of the human soul is cleansed of all worldly and impeding attachments, it will unfailingly perceive the breath of the Beloved across immeasurable distances, and will, led by its perfume, attain and enter the City of Certitude.” (Baha’u’llah- Book of Certitude)

To reach this plane of Certitude, the true seeker must fulfil certain conditions as laid down in that same Book.

That was 47 years ago.

So poor reasoning and confirmation bias. Your reasons for becoming a theist were not rational.

 

[F1fan]

I was a strong atheist from the age of 15-20.

...

So I set out on a personal mission to prove God did not exist. I wrote a paper called “Proofs and evidences of the non existence of God” . I came across Christian arguments and the Bible but still wasn’t convinced of anything at all.

It was when I began reading the Writings of Baha’u’llah and Abdul-Baha that it all made sense and I made my own personal discovery and connection with God.

The only way I can try and describe what happened was when I was by myself at home one day reading the Words of Baha’u’llah. The experience is best described by these Words of Baha’u’llah.

The quote you offered doesn't provide facts nor a coherent argument based on them. Given you were a teenager whose brain might have been rebellious to norms, and functionally not fully developed, have you considered that you were a religious person rebelling against that part of your nature? Your sudden conversion seems to be after some pushback against social/religious norms, not a logical disagreement. I find it odd that any informed atheist would try to disprove a God exists since that is known to be not a winnable argument UNLESS the God concept is very well defined and testable. Your testimony suggests to me a young and confused person trying to sort out identity and you eventually gave in to the pressure to accept the idea of a God existing. This is typically an emotional experience, and the self and intellect must surrender to the reward of belief.

Social pressure works on the emotions by stressing requirements to belong, and in religious circles that is to accept and adopt the concepts they assert.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's because theists like yourself make claims that you can't back up. It often sounds like you're bluffing and when called out you fold.

I never fold.

That's one less unverifiable claim you have to worry about.

A claim that cannot really be verified.

Actually I'm not picking any side because I'm not convinced any are true. I do point out the broad divergence of religious belief about Gods.

Fair enough.

Kinda crazy, isn't it? theists claim to be moral through God but are seldom pointing out how truly horrific it is that their God's creation has so many tragic elements. Why aren't theists the one's bringing this up and being critical of their God about this?

Yes, it is kind of crazy that theists do not understand that an all-powerful God is responsible for the bad as well as the good things that happen in this world, that is the things that are not the result if human free will decisions. I am one theist who will bring it up and I do so often. I even have threads I started in the subject.

What is God responsible for?

What is God responsible for?

Since you're not a Christian and aren't being bought off with salvation why aren't you being critical of God for these factual observations? Ifd you were God would you allow children to suffer and die from disease, and just stand there watching? You keep talking about promises, and a perfect world, but that ha to mean something at some point, yes?

I do not like suffering but am rational enough to know that God cannot intervene in this world and prevent all suffering. God gave man a brain and free will so man could learn what he needs to do and make choices and eliminate as much suffering as possible; eliminating suffering is not God’s job, it is man’s job. God’s job is to send Messengers as Divine Physicians who bring the prescriptions to heal humanity. If we take their prescriptions we can heal humanity, and that is what the Baha’is are attempting to do, but it doesn’t happen overnight as humanity has been sick for a very long time.

If you believe God created the world then it is accountable. This doesn't explain why there are genetic diseases designed into it. You might say it is a way to push humanity and science to cure diseases, but this means we have to ignore the many victims who suffer along the way, and for what? Drama? Theater?

Yes indeed, God is accountable for creating a world that is a storehouse of suffering and I don’t like it any better than you do, especially given I have spent most of my life suffering. Of course Baha’is all know the following quote, but they don’t get it that God is responsible for this suffering.

“O thou seeker of the Kingdom! Thy letter was received. Thou hast written of the severe calamity that hath befallen thee—the death of thy respected husband. That honourable man hath been so subjected to the stress and strain of this world that his greatest wish was for deliverance from it. Such is this mortal abode: a storehouse of afflictions and suffering. It is ignorance that binds man to it, for no comfort can be secured by any soul in this world, from monarch down to the most humble commoner. If once this life should offer a man a sweet cup, a hundred bitter ones will follow; such is the condition of this world. The wise man, therefore, doth not attach himself to this mortal life and doth not depend upon it; at some moments, even, he eagerly wisheth for death that he may thereby be freed from these sorrows and afflictions. Thus it is seen that some, under extreme pressure of anguish, have committed suicide.”
Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 200

Like I keep saying you offer no real explanations except p[romises and more claims. You have yet to offer a moral explanation for any of this. If your God exists it's as if it created a world that would appear as if it didn't exist. And if it does it's not worth worshipping. It's no more impressive than gravity.

I struggle with the same things you do and I do not do well at worshipping God.

Why should we love and trust God? Is God loving and trustworthy?

But I do believe that God exists and that God is good and that it is in my best interest to struggle with my issues and try to resolve them before I die.

There is no moral explanation for what God does or does not do because God is not a moral agent, only humans are moral agents.

I would think a person who is so committed and assertive about a dogma that you would consider all the criticisms presented to you and be aware of the many problems your religion and belief has. You are aware of the many other religions and don't assign meaning to them which suggests you think they're false. Yet other are buying into these religions due to coercive forces, but you think you're exempt.

I am aware if the many problems and I am willing to consider any criticisms you can throw at me and my religion.

I do not believe the other religions are false, but they are outdated and they have been corrupted by man over time, and as such they are no longer very useful, since the Baha’i Faith has everything humanity needs in this age.

 

[Trailblazer]

It was when I began reading the Writings of Baha’u’llah and Abdul-Baha that it all made sense and I made my own personal discovery and connection with God.

I had a similar experience in 2014 when I first read Gleanings and understood what I was reading and Who it was coming from!
I described how I became a Baha'i and that personal experience with Gleanings on this thread about a year ago.

Proof of Islam?

 

[Trailblazer]

Let's say your friend claims he has an elephant in his back yard and you don't believe him. You go to his house and look, and sure enough, there's an actual, living elephant in his back yard. So you now KNOW he's correct. Our senses inform us that there is an animal we know is called an elephant. It's a fact, not belief.

Or you go over and you see that he carved an elephant out of an old tree stump, so while true, his claim was misleading, and you KNOW that it's a carving, not an actual elephant.

Or you go over and you see no elephant, but then he say see this pile of poop, it's from an elephant. It looks like dog poop so you're not convinced. Then he says look at all this straw I have for the elephant. "Would I have all this straw if I didn't have an elephant?" You could. Doesn't prove an elephant is here. Then he says "You have to take it on faith that there's an elephant around here." No I don't. He provided no compelling evidence of an elephant, just claims. So you reject the claim.

And Imo you should reject the claims and not accept them on faith alone.

I don't. So why do you think your unverified claims mean anything to us? Where's your evidence? That's what we keep asking for.

I have presented all the evidence I have on this forum many times. I cannot present evidence I don’t have. When I say I have presented it I mean I have explained what the evidence is and I provided links where you can go and research it for yourself.

Some time ago when asked for evidence 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

I'm very suspicious of atheist to believer conversion stories. No one ends up believing a god exists due to facts and a coherent argument.

I did, but most people probably don’t.

What you probably mean is you know guys who weren't religious and they ended up finding a religion they liked. It's also notable that many folks who were not religious became religious after some emotionally traumatic experience. The reason they "found" God is to soothe their anxiety and distress, not some rational conclusion based on facts.

No, that is not what happened to these guys who had personal ‘God experiences.’ They never ended up in any religions; they just believed that God existed. The fact that it was related to a traumatic experience that they were going through does not negate their experiences. In fact, had they not been going through these things they would not have been able or willing to set their ego aside and cry out to God for help. God does not like ego very much but God does like it when we cry out for help. I have done it many times and I got answers.

No, reason these guys I know "found" God was not to soothe their anxiety and distress, it was because they cried out to God and God came to them. No, it was not like what happened to me when I first found God, it was not from a religion based upon rational conclusions and facts.

 

[Vinayaka]

The quote you offered doesn't provide facts nor a coherent argument based on them. Given you were a teenager whose brain might have been rebellious to norms, and functionally not fully developed, have you considered that you were a religious person rebelling against that part of your nature? Your sudden conversion seems to be after some pushback against social/religious norms, not a logical disagreement. I find it odd that any informed atheist would try to disprove a God exists since that is known to be not a winnable argument UNLESS the God concept is very well defined and testable. Your testimony suggests to me a young and confused person trying to sort out identity and you eventually gave in to the pressure to accept the idea of a God existing. This is typically an emotional experience, and the self and intellect must surrender to the reward of belief.

Social pressure works on the emotions by stressing requirements to belong, and in religious circles that is to accept and adopt the concepts they assert.

There has been a whole lot of successful friendship evangelism over the years, in many directions, for many reasons. One cannot underestimate the value of friendship, psychologically. The net result for the person can be either negative or positive. It may take them to a better place that they were.

 

[F1fan]

There has been a whole lot of successful friendship evangelism over the years, in many directions, for many reasons. One cannot underestimate the value of friendship, psychologically. The net result for the person can be either negative or positive. It may take them to a better place that they were.

Right. There are theater groups who enjoy doing improv. There are running clubs, cycling clubs, poker games, sailing enthusiasts, free public yoga, etc. We humans are social animals and we socialize most everything we doo. Even the KKK, a Christian group, has a very social element to it. So religion does the same thing.

 

[F1fan]

And Imo you should reject the claims and not accept them on faith alone.

'I accept your advice and apply it to your religious claims since you offer us no evidence ce they are true. You being convinced is irrelevant.

I have presented all the evidence I have on this forum many times. I cannot present evidence I don’t have. When I say I have presented it I mean I have explained what the evidence is and I provided links where you can go and research it for yourself.

You accept the idea of a God on faith, the very thing you just advised me not to do, You r only evidence is quoting texts which operate with loads of assumptions that you offer NO evidence for.

Some time ago when asked for evidence 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
[/quote]
Terrible. Like I noted there are just more claims without ANY evidence for the assumptions these claims are built on. Your link in ONLY for those who already assume a God exists. It's not for thinkers like me. You offer no evidence that will convince an objective thinker.

I did, but most people probably don’t.[/quote
If you are no lying to us, or yourself, explain how you were convinced a God exists with indisputable evidence that is available to any objective mind. From what I've seen of your posts you assume a God exists and you really just try to convince others that your religious viewpoint is true. You never mention any evidence that a God exists outside of imagination.

This one thing is all that matters. A guy claiming to be a messenger fro God means nothing until you can show that God exists. Otherwise they guy is likely just a fraud.

No, that is not what happened to these guys who had personal ‘God experiences.’

Don't underestimate the subconscious and what kind of experiences it creates for a mind desperate for meaning. the conscious mind has no idea what goes on in the subconscious. Our minds work very hard at self-deception. All of us have this. The subconscious works to help us cope, offset boredom, deal with failure and pain, and our conscious mind gets only what it can handle. I'm going to guess you aren't familiar with the psychology of belief.

No, reason these guys I know "found" God was not to soothe their anxiety and distress, it was because they cried out to God and God came to them. No, it was not like what happened to me when I first found God, it was not from a religion based upon rational conclusions and facts.

Isn't it funny that God only comes to people who assume the God exists FIRST? Many atheists have done this test, and nothing answers. If a God exists the group it would want to impress the most is atheists. Yet crickets. Let's trust the honest seekers of truth, and not those who assume they found what they were looking for.

 

[Trailblazer]

I accept your advice and apply it to your religious claims since you offer us no evidence ce they are true. You being convinced is irrelevant.

I have offered my evidence time and again and atheists just say “that’s not evidence.” You not being convinced is irrelevant as to whether it is evidence or not.

You accept the idea of a God on faith, the very thing you just advised me not to do, Your only evidence is quoting texts which operate with loads of assumptions that you offer NO evidence for.

The only evidence for God is the Messengers God sends. The texts that Baha’u’llah wrote is only part of the evidence.

Terrible. Like I noted there are just more claims without ANY evidence for the assumptions these claims are built on. Your link in ONLY for those who already assume a God exists. It's not for thinkers like me. You offer no evidence that will convince an objective thinker.

No, I never “assumed” a God existed before I heard of Baha’u’llah… He is the evidence for me. YMMV.

If you are no lying to us, or yourself, explain how you were convinced a God exists with indisputable evidence that is available to any objective mind. From what I've seen of your posts you assume a God exists and you really just try to convince others that your religious viewpoint is true. You never mention any evidence that a God exists outside of imagination.

Baha’u’llah – who He was as a person, what He did on His mission and what He wrote - was indisputable evidence for me. I asked you what would constitute evidence for you and you never came up with anything that was reasonable. Why you think there should be some kind of objective evidence that everyone would recognize as evidence is beyond me. God is not a material Being so there can be no such evidence.

This one thing is all that matters. A guy claiming to be a messenger from God means nothing until you can show that God exists. Otherwise they guy is likely just a fraud.

Oh here we go, I have heard this before. There is no way to show that God exists without the Messenger because He is the proof that God exists. It is illogical to say the Messenger is a fraud because God cannot be proven to exist first, since God cannot be proven to exist without the Messenger.

Don't underestimate the subconscious and what kind of experiences it creates for a mind desperate for meaning. the conscious mind has no idea what goes on in the subconscious. Our minds work very hard at self-deception. All of us have this. The subconscious works to help us cope, offset boredom, deal with failure and pain, and our conscious mind gets only what it can handle. I'm going to guess you aren't familiar with the psychology of belief.

I know all about psychology and the unconscious mind but that does not prove anything about believers. The psychology of belief? It cuts both ways. Logically speaking it is just as likely that nonbelievers are deceiving themselves into “believing” that there is no God.

Isn't it funny that God only comes to people who assume the God exists FIRST? Many atheists have done this test, and nothing answers. If a God exists the group it would want to impress the most is atheists. Yet crickets. Let's trust the honest seekers of truth, and not those who assume they found what they were looking for.

There is nothing funny about it and it is perfectly logical. Why would God “come” to an atheist who does not believe He exists, UNLESS that atheist was sincere and willing to believe in Him and in His signs? Those guys I mentioned were such men. They did not assume, they knew they found what they were looking for, as that is what happens when God sends people a sign.

Why would God care about convincing atheists? God does not need anyone’s belief; especially does God not need or want the belief of atheists who reject His Messengers.

If atheists were honest seekers of truth they would have found God by now, as they would be willing to look at evidence that they do not consider evidence to SEE if it is evidence after all.

“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

 

[McBell]

'I accept your advice and apply it to your religious claims since you offer us no evidence ce they are true. You being convinced is irrelevant.

Except that she did in fact present evidence.
That you failed to specify what type of evidence is on you, not her.
And her being convinced is in fact relevant.

Evidence: that which convinces.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them in Investigations​

 

[F1fan]

I have offered my evidence time and again and atheists just say “that’s not evidence.” You not being convinced is irrelevant as to whether it is evidence or not.

Have you considered YOUR evidence is very poor quality, and you were open to believe a new theology?

The only evidence for God is the Messengers God sends. The texts that Baha’u’llah wrote is only part of the evidence.

That's a good reason why there are so many religions and contrary messages from so many different gods. If there was one true messenger he/she would know to do something obvious and extraordinary to assure people he/she is authentic. You've pointed out no such thing.

No, I never “assumed” a God existed before I heard of Baha’u’llah… He is the evidence for me. YMMV.

Yet you fail to offer any evidence or argument that would convince an objective mind, so I think you might be fooling yourself.

Baha’u’llah – who He was as a person, what He did on His mission and what He wrote - was indisputable evidence for me. I asked you what would constitute evidence for you and you never came up with anything that was reasonable. Why you think there should be some kind of objective evidence that everyone would recognize as evidence is beyond me. God is not a material Being so there can be no such evidence.

Your standards are low, so irrelevant as an argument. We don't care what you believe. We care if you can offer facts and a coherent argument that a God exists outside your imagination. You fail this every time.

Oh here we go, I have heard this before. There is no way to show that God exists without the Messenger because He is the proof that God exists. It is illogical to say the Messenger is a fraud because God cannot be proven to exist first, since God cannot be proven to exist without the Messenger.

This is a logical fallacy, circular reasoning. You still have to assume a God exists. So you aren't taking your own advice to not take things on faith.

I know all about psychology and the unconscious mind but that does not prove anything about believers. The psychology of belief? It cuts both ways. Logically speaking it is just as likely that nonbelievers are deceiving themselves into “believing” that there is no God.

My impression is that you say this to fool yourself. I'm not convinced you know what you claim you do.

There is nothing funny about it and it is perfectly logical. Why would God “come” to an atheist who does not believe He exists, UNLESS that atheist was sincere and willing to believe in Him and in His signs? Those guys I mentioned were such men. They did not assume, they knew they found what they were looking for, as that is what happens when God sends people a sign.

Because atheists don't believe, and for excellent reasons. No believer thinks a God exists because of facts and a coherent argument. You've failed to show me wrong.

Why would God care about convincing atheists? God does not need anyone’s belief; especially does God not need or want the belief of atheists who reject His Messengers.

Because atheists don't believe, and for excellent reasons. Atheists are rational and they would be the best people to appear to as a way to convince the world it exists and has a message. Oddly the only ones who believe are those who made no rational conclusion a God exists, and instead accepted beliefs from others on faith, which is against your own advice.

If atheists were honest seekers of truth they would have found God by now, as they would be willing to look at evidence that they do not consider evidence to SEE if it is evidence after all.

If there was evidence you would be right. Since there ins't the atheists are correct to not believe on faith, which is your advice.

 

[F1fan]

Except that she did in fact present evidence.
That you failed to specify what type of evidence is on you, not her.
And her being convinced is in fact relevant.

Evidence: that which convinces.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them in Investigations​

Providing poor evidence has been explained as unacceptable. That the person keeps posting poor evidence is not the fault of those asking for compelling and extraordinary evidence.

Let's note the person is claiming to know a God exists, yet can't explain how this is knowledge and not an illusion. We have good reason to demand the burden of proof be met, don't you think?

 

[McBell]

Providing poor evidence has been explained as unacceptable.

Poor to whom?
Unacceptable to whom?
You?
And you are?

That the person keeps posting poor evidence is not the fault of those asking for compelling and extraordinary evidence.

It is YOUR fault when YOU ask for evidence (what convinced them) and then tell them that the evidence (what convinced them) is not evidence (did not convince them) when the fact of the matter is that the evidence (what convinced them) is evidence (what convinced them) regardless of how much you call them a liar.

Let's note the person is claiming to know a God exists, yet can't explain how this is knowledge and not an illusion. We have good reason to demand the burden of proof be met, don't you think?

So their evidence (what convinced them) does not convince you.
Why is it so important for them to meet YOUR standard of evidence?

Do you really think that continuously calling them a liar will lead to anything productive?

 

[Trailblazer]

Have you considered YOUR evidence is very poor quality, and you were open to believe a new theology?

No, I have not considered that because I am very self-aware so I well know why I became a Baha’i and remained a Baha’i all throughout my life. It was never something I wanted or desired, and for many decades I tried to ignore it, but I always believed it was true because of the evidence for Baha’u’llah.

Who are you to set the standards for good evidence? What s poor quality evidence to you is good evidence to me. This is something atheists just do not seem to understand but it is perfectly logical if you understand what evidence is, by definition.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

There is no such thing as “good” evidence because what is good evidence to one person is not necessarily good evidence to another person.

Something is evidence to me because it indicates to me that my beliefs are true.

The same evidence will not be evidence to you because it does not indicate to you that my beliefs are true.

That's a good reason why there are so many religions and contrary messages from so many different gods. If there was one true messenger he/she would know to do something obvious and extraordinary to assure people he/she is authentic. You've pointed out no such thing.

No, the reason why there are so many religions that are different is because the Messengers reveal different religions in every age, according to the needs of humans in every age. They are different but not contrary messages until humans distort the messages my misinterpreting their scriptures to mean things they were never intended to mean.

Yet you fail to offer any evidence or argument that would convince an objective mind, so I think you might be fooling yourself.

There is no such thing as an objective mind vs. a subjective mind. All people just have a mind.
I have already offered all the evidence I have. Again, it can be seen on this post:

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

Your standards are low, so irrelevant as an argument. We don't care what you believe. We care if you can offer facts and a coherent argument that a God exists outside your imagination. You fail this every time.

From my perspective my standards are high, from your perspective they are low. You want some kind of proof that God exists but there is no proof except the Messengers of God and the religions they establish. You can choose to take it or leave it, God does not care.

Most people in the world have some kind of religion and for them that is the proof that God exists. 84 percent of the world population has a faith and because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. Hindus and Buddhists comprise most of the rest of believers and they also have a Messenger (or messengers) they believe in. It does not matter if you call them a Messenger; they are men who founded the religions, so they are Mediators between God and man. Sure, there are a few stragglers, believers who believe in God but not a Messenger; this comprises about 9% of the world population, but that is not the norm. The point is that with no Messengers, very few people would believe in God. That alone is the logical proof that the proof of God is the Messengers He sends.

Sadly, atheists do not think logically because all they can see is the religions that have been corrupted by man over time so they discount religion altogether. When they discount the Baha’i Faith because they assume it is “just another religion” they are committing the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions.

This is a logical fallacy, circular reasoning. You still have to assume a God exists. So you aren't taking your own advice to not take things on faith.

No, it is not circular reasoning because I am not starting with what I am trying to end with.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

I did not assume God exists before I believed in Baha’u’llah; Baha’u’llah was the proof I needed to believe that God exists. I did not take anything on faith; I believed that God existed because I determined that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. Obviously if Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, God exists.

My impression is that you say this to fool yourself. I'm not convinced you know what you claim you do.

It was never my intention to convince you, you are the one asking me to convince you.

Because atheists don't believe, and for excellent reasons. No believer thinks a God exists because of facts and a coherent argument. You've failed to show me wrong.

I cannot show you anything because your mind is as closed as a steel trap. No matter what I say you say it is wrong so what’s the point? I have been down this road with atheists many times so I know the drill.

No believer thinks a God exists because of facts and a coherent argument? That is a fallacy of hasty generalization is I have ever seen one. So all of the 93% of people in the world who believe in God are incoherent? Give me a break.

Because atheists don't believe, and for excellent reasons.

The reasons are not excellent at all. The reason atheists do not believe in God is because they DEMAND evidence that does not exist and many atheists expect God to provide some kind of special evidence just for them, as if God was a God is not a short order cook. The great religions are not good enough, I cannot imagine anything more arrogant.

Atheists are rational and they would be the best people to appear to as a way to convince the world it exists and has a message.

Atheists are not rational at all because if they were rational they would accept the only evidence that God has EVER provided, which is religion. What is so obvious to almost all the people in the world completely eludes atheists.

Oddly the only ones who believe are those who made no rational conclusion a God exists, and instead accepted beliefs from others on faith, which is against your own advice.

No, they accepted all the great religions in the world as evidence, which is rational.

If there was evidence you would be right. Since there ins't the atheists are correct to not believe on faith, which is your advice.

Some faith is necessary to believe in an unseen God, and that s logic 101, but the faith can be a reason-based faith and that is what it should be.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I don't believe in a god. I also can't show a good doesn't exist. In short I don't know so i don't claim anything either way.

So i ask again...

So if we don't know then it doesn't exist or didn't happen? That's interesting.
Or does it simply mean we aren't aware of it yet? If we aren't aware of something does that mean it isn't possible?

Fact is someone designed and engineered all we experience in the natural world. God has been active with Human Beings created in His image, has made Himself known to many people, has confirmed this relationship by giving those people spiritual eyesight or the Holy Spirit, His Spirit. Only way to know God is to make a covenant with Him through Jesus Christ and that’s what I did, and that’s how I know. Before I made that covenant I didn’t know for sure if God existed or not.

 

[F1fan]

Poor to whom?
Unacceptable to whom?
You?
And you are?

Not just me, but to objective thinkers. To science. We can discuss what is acceptable and what isn't. Faith isn't arrived at from evidence, it's arrived at from an emotional response.

It is YOUR fault when YOU ask for evidence (what convinced them) and then tell them that the evidence (what convinced them) is not evidence (did not convince them) when the fact of the matter is that the evidence (what convinced them) is evidence (what convinced them) regardless of how much you call them a liar.

I've asked for evidence many, many times over the decades and believers often confuse the emotional response they experienced as being evidence that they arrived at a rational conclusion. This becomes clear after questions are asked. Their confusion is not my fault. Me explaining the differences between credible evidence and reasoned conclusions versus accepting ideas on faith is what gets exposed. And there's a difference between a person accepting an ideas as true and looking for validation for it versus examining an idea objectively looking for credible evidence for why is is more likely true.

The role of the subconscious is often overlooked as to why a person accepts certain ideas as true. These ideas can stimulate the reward center of the brain and it literally feels good and euphoric to believe. This becomes a sort of Pavlov's Dog type scenario where a person experiences a behavior where the brain is stimulated, so the behavior is reinforced and repeated. The Book Emotional Intelligence explains all this in good detail. It shows via fMRI and PET scans how religious belief actually bypasses the reasoning parts of the brain and lights up the emotional and reward areas.

So theists aren';t so much liars as they are trapped in a cycle of behavior and simply aren't aware of what their brains are doing. The conscious awareness and cognitive brain tries to make sense of the experiences with limited knowledge.

So their evidence (what convinced them) does not convince you.
Why is it so important for them to meet YOUR standard of evidence?

Because we need more people in our society to understand their own thinking, and not operate with habits of thinking. Reason is reliable and works. Faith is unreliable and flawed. Plus, this is entertaining.

Do you really think that continuously calling them a liar will lead to anything productive?

Show data that I continuously call theists liars. That is argue against they claims is not calling them liars. You yourself posted something deliberately false on other post. I pointed it out. Is pointing out errors off limits?

 

[F1fan]

No, I have not considered that because I am very self-aware so I well know why I became a Baha’i and remained a Baha’i all throughout my life. It was never something I wanted or desired, and for many decades I tried to ignore it, but I always believed it was true because of the evidence for Baha’u’llah.

Who are you to set the standards for good evidence? What s poor quality evidence to you is good evidence to me. This is something atheists just do not seem to understand but it is perfectly logical if you understand what evidence is, by definition.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

There is no such thing as “good” evidence because what is good evidence to one person is not necessarily good evidence to another person.

Something is evidence to me because it indicates to me that my beliefs are true.

The same evidence will not be evidence to you because it does not indicate to you that my beliefs are true.

You don't offer facts or data, you offer your beliefs that you assume are true. That's not sufficient for open debate.

Your standard is very low. My standard in the norm and evidence required is in proportion to the claims made. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence. extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence.

No, the reason why there are so many religions that are different is because the Messengers reveal different religions in every age, according to the needs of humans in every age. They are different but not contrary messages until humans distort the messages my misinterpreting their scriptures to mean things they were never intended to mean.

Prove it.

There is no such thing as an objective mind vs. a subjective mind. All people just have a mind.
I have already offered all the evidence I have.

Yes there is. Science is an example of an objective process. That's a fact that proves your claim wrong.

It's in your interest to deny there are objective minds because your process is highly subjective and that is all you have as an argument. You're asking us to accept your way of thinking as true and factual when it isn't.

From my perspective my standards are high, from your perspective they are low. You want some kind of proof that God exists but there is no proof except the Messengers of God and the religions they establish. You can choose to take it or leave it, God does not care.

As you just denied there are objective minds this suggests your perspective is flawed. Your standards have been explained as being very low.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fact is someone designed and engineered all we experience in the natural world. God has been active with Human Beings created in His image, has made Himself known to many people, has confirmed this relationship by giving those people spiritual eyesight or the Holy Spirit, His Spirit. Only way to know God is to make a covenant with Him through Jesus Christ and that’s what I did, and that’s how I know. Before I made that covenant I didn’t know for sure if God existed or not.

What makes you think that is a fact? There is no evidence for that claim. There is endless scientific evidence that we are the product of evolution.

 

[ElishaElijah]

What makes you think that is a fact? There is no evidence for that claim. There is endless scientific evidence that we are the product of evolution.

Everyone will get the proof they’re looking for when they die, by then it will be too late for repentance and then you will know for sure. I already made my decision.

 

[McBell]

Not just me, but to objective thinkers. To science. We can discuss what is acceptable and what isn't. Faith isn't arrived at from evidence, it's arrived at from an emotional response.

Your avoidance is duly noted.

I've asked for evidence many, many times over the decades and believers often confuse the emotional response they experienced as being evidence that they arrived at a rational conclusion. This becomes clear after questions are asked. Their confusion is not my fault. Me explaining the differences between credible evidence and reasoned conclusions versus accepting ideas on faith is what gets exposed. And there's a difference between a person accepting an ideas as true and looking for validation for it versus examining an idea objectively looking for credible evidence for why is is more likely true.

The role of the subconscious is often overlooked as to why a person accepts certain ideas as true. These ideas can stimulate the reward center of the brain and it literally feels good and euphoric to believe. This becomes a sort of Pavlov's Dog type scenario where a person experiences a behavior where the brain is stimulated, so the behavior is reinforced and repeated. The Book Emotional Intelligence explains all this in good detail. It shows via fMRI and PET scans how religious belief actually bypasses the reasoning parts of the brain and lights up the emotional and reward areas.

So theists aren';t so much liars as they are trapped in a cycle of behavior and simply aren't aware of what their brains are doing. The conscious awareness and cognitive brain tries to make sense of the experiences with limited knowledge.

It is interesting how you ignore the fact that there is more than your prefered type of evidence.
Even more interesting is how you cling to it like some sort of ace in the hole.

Fact of the matter is, when you ask for evidence asn are presented evidence, you flat out deny that evidence was presented.
That is you indirectly calling them a liar.

That you refuse to accept that is on you.

Because we need more people in our society to understand their own thinking, and not operate with habits of thinking. Reason is reliable and works. Faith is unreliable and flawed. Plus, this is entertaining.

I understand you are only looking for the argument.
You have made that pefectly clear in that you seldom even acknowledge things beyond your PoV...

Show data that I continuously call theists liars. That is argue against they claims is not calling them liars. You yourself posted something deliberately false on other post. I pointed it out. Is pointing out errors off limits?

Every single time you claim a theists presented evidence is not evidence you are indirectly calling them a liar.


You will have to remind me of this alleged lie.