Evidence for God

[Trailblazer]

Proving God to a non believer will not make most non believers, believe in God. They may know God exists, but not believe in Him.

That's a good point. What good would it do for nonbelievers to know that God exists if they did not also believe in Him?
And how is that going to happen? Not simply because they know He exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, but I still believe in God and yet I do it differently than you.

We all do it differently since we are all different.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your argument is an ad-hominem. You assume i must be a coward because i don't like suffering, but you don't know me, nor do you know what words such as All-Merciful and All-Powerful mean in my view.

I never called you a coward.

To me they mean God has the power to achieve whatever alleged "good purpose" there is in suffering through another means that does not involve suffering, and being completely All-Merciful means that God has the motive to prevent suffering.

To me All-Powerful means God has all power to acieve whatever He deems appropriate. To me All-Knowing means that God knows the *best way* to achieve His purposes for humans, and since suffering was the means used that means it was the best way. To me All-Merciful means willing to be kind to and forgive people who are in their power.

So go ahead, call me a coward all you like for rejecting the existence of your cruel God if it makes you feel better to deceive yourself than to get to actually know a person and what they are really like.

I did not call you a coward. I said "Cowards don't like suffering so they think God should not allow it." I was just repeating the sentiments that Abdu'l-Baha expressed about about cowards when he contrasted them with holy souls and I do not agree with him, because I don't think people should be called cowards just because they cannot withstand suffering.

 

[Trailblazer]

If we suppose God spoke to humanity via Messengers what would the evidence look like? if I understand the supposed evidence is scripture. What exactly in the scripture makes it evident that it is the message from God (and not a story invented by men)?

My belief is the that Messengers ARE the evidence that God exists, since God sent them as evidence, but in order to believe that one has to believe they are actually Messengers sent by God, right?

The scripture is part of the evidence but not the most important part.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of the claims of a Messenger of God. His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in history), and His words (His Writings or what was written about Him).

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

 

[CG Didymus]

If we suppose God spoke to humanity via Messengers what would the evidence look like? if I understand the supposed evidence is scripture. What exactly in the scripture makes it evident that it is the message from God (and not a story invented by men)?

Baha'is say the messengers are the evidence. My problem with that is the people they call messengers... which includes Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses all from the same religion? And I really don't think that even Judaism considers them what Baha'is call "manifestations of God", which are supposed to perfectly reflect God. These people, if they were even all real, historical people, all had very human flaws. Adam disobeyed God and got cursed. And Moses killed an Egyptian. But none of that bothers Baha'is. They see a progression from all those people they call manifestations/messengers, along with Krishna, Buddha and Zoroaster, and then on to Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

It kind of makes sense, sort of? As long as we ignore how the teachings of all these people are so different.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It kind of makes sense, sort of? As long as we ignore how the teachings of all these people are so different.

They aren't so different.
They all believed in the One G-d of Abraham.

..and they were all humans, but they were much closer to G-d than the rest of us,
so were "perfect" in comparison.

 

[Trailblazer]

From my point of view, it's not that it's impossible, but a world without suffering would be an extremely strange place. I'm not sure that people would prefer it.

For example, without suffering what is preventing a person from lighting themself on fire? Or lighting someone else on fire? There is no suffering, so why not?

A person could choose not to eat, and starve themself, refuse clothing, shelter, and would have minimal physical warnings that they are about to die.

Even if minor suffering exists, and extreme suffering is eliminated the same problem occurs. Should there be the same penalty for verbal assault compared to physical torture? If the amount of suffering inflicted is no different between the two, why should there be a more severe punishment?

Without suffering, there's no harm, without harm, there is no basis for morality. Without morality, there is no justice, no righteousness. Everything becomes bland and strange. There's no incentive for anything.

So, it is illogical to create a world without any suffering.

*WINNER*

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh, how can one say there is no evidence for any God if they don't know what God is? That's a great game, I'll play. Now that I'm playing, guess what, since we don't know what God is you also don't know what evidence for this God WOULD BE.

I know what the evidence for God IS, so I don't need to know what the evidence for God WOULD BE.

If you don’t know what God is how can you say that evidence for God would NOT be according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities? That is not logical.
Or does this only work in your favor against atheism?

I know what the evidence for God IS so I know it IS NOT according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities.
That is how I know that evidence for God would NOT be according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities.

Also you do accept God messages from one person. While also rejecting others because they conflict your first belief. Makes no sense either.
The Quran and Gospels are very clear about future prophets. The idea is that God always knows the future, even with freewill. He would NEVER ever have to say there will be no more prophets and then change his mind. HE would know. But you claim he lied or had to come back with new messages.

The Quran and Gospels do not say there will be no more prophets. Those are merely Christianity's and Islam's false beliefs based upon misinterpretation of the scriptures, in an effort to claim that they are the last and final religion from God.

Please explain how you can rant about atheists and have such inconsistent beliefs.

Please show me where I ever ranted about atheists. It is the atheists who rant at believers, whoever will listen to them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then God can't really blame folks for a lack of belief.

I am not blaming anyone for lack of belief. We all have different standards for belief.

Life has taught me not to believe the words of others without some physical evidence that backs them up.

That is okay, but since God is not physical you won't be getting any such evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm willing to accept there are "true messengers" of a God but the rest of us are left with no way of physically verifying their claims. So there is no way to verify who is a true messenger. Many of these messengers claim to be supported by the Bible or at least not at odds with it. Most claim to be providing clarification to the Bible. There are several of these messengers alive today all making similar claims.

As an atheist, I am simply saying I do not possess the wherewithall to separate the true messengers from the false ones.

That is a legitimate concern since there is no way of physically verifying their claims.

One way to approach this is to have of kind of criteria that a true messenger would have to meet, and if other claimants did not meet that criteria you could chalk them off the list. Then you could evaluate the claimants who were left on your list.

First I think you need to look at their fruits as that would eliminate the false claimants right away.

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: fruit
Jesus said we would know them by their fruits so that would eliminate

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope. I never said that messengers of God do not exist. So you are claiming I conclude things that I never concluded.

I am just claiming that they provide no evidence to be messengers of of something that actually exists.

The messengers do provide evidence of God, which exists.

All you have is what some people claim. But claiming, is not evidence.

I have said umpteen million times that the claim is not evidence but that there is evidence that supports the claims.
I am not going to delineate what I believe the evidence is again. I am only going to ask you one thing. Hypothetically speaking, if a man was actually a messenger of God what would he have to do to demonstrate that to you?

In other words, what would be the evidence that would support his claim to be a messenger of God?

I could make up a definition of God, and then claim that I know God and behave exactly like the definition I gave. It wold be embarrassingly easy. And even more embarrassing to buy it.

Is that evidence that God exist and I am His messenger? Of course not;

Of course not, not unless you could do something to convince me you were a messenger. Otherwise why would I believe you were speaking for God?

So why should you messengers prove anything? Or even provide evidence that goes above the zero evidence God already enjoys?

They wouldn't prove anything unless they could demonstrate that they were messengers.
You got that right. There is zero evidence without the messengers.

 

[Trailblazer]

From my point of view, it's not that it's impossible, but a world without suffering would be an extremely strange place. I'm not sure that people would prefer it.

For example, without suffering what is preventing a person from lighting themself on fire? Or lighting someone else on fire? There is no suffering, so why not?

A person could choose not to eat, and starve themself, refuse clothing, shelter, and would have minimal physical warnings that they are about to die.

Even if minor suffering exists, and extreme suffering is eliminated the same problem occurs. Should there be the same penalty for verbal assault compared to physical torture? If the amount of suffering inflicted is no different between the two, why should there be a more severe punishment?

Without suffering, there's no harm, without harm, there is no basis for morality. Without morality, there is no justice, no righteousness. Everything becomes bland and strange. There's no incentive for anything.

So, it is illogical to create a world without any suffering.

While I concede to the fact that suffering has to exist in a material world, and that there is some value to suffering, I question why there has to be so much suffering, and I especially question why suffering is so unequally distributed, such that some people suffer all throughout their lives while other people hardly suffer at all. I do not think most suffering is brought on by from decisions these people made that brought on the suffering. I believe it is fate so I believe God is responsible for the kind of suffering that comes to man through no fault of his own.

If I did not have strong faith and if I was not very resourceful I would not still be alive. Even with that, it is really hard to get out of bed in te morning and face another day. It is only my strong will and my cats that keep me going.

So I ask you, since I value your opinion, does God have an off switch and if not why doesn't He? When does God know it is time to stop sending tests?
I do not want to hear a Baha'i view because I have already heard it and I don't buy their tired old argument.

 

[dybmh]

While I concede to the fact that suffering has to exist in a material world, and that there is some value to suffering, I question why there has to be so much suffering, and I especially question why suffering is so unequally distributed, such that some people suffer all throughout their lives while other people hardly suffer at all. I do not think most suffering is brought on by from decisions these people made that brought on the suffering. I believe it is fate so I believe God is responsible for the kind of suffering that comes to man through no fault of his own.

If I did not have strong faith and if I was not very resourceful I would not still be alive. Even with that, it is really hard to get out of bed in te morning and face another day. It is only my strong will and my cats that keep me going.

So I ask you, since I value your opinion, does God have an off switch and if not why doesn't He? When does God know it is time to stop sending tests?
I do not want to hear a Baha'i view because I have already heard it and I don't buy their tired old argument.

I don't know why. All I have are optimistic maybes. I can share a few, but, only if you think it would be helpful. I certainly won't tell you they are tests though.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know why. All I have are optimistic maybes. I can share a few, but, only if you think it would be helpful.

Go ahead and share those.

I certainly won't tell you they are tests though.

So you don't believe in tests sent by God? How refreshing. The Baha'is love their tests as long as they are not the ones so targeted.

 

[dybmh]

Go ahead and share those.

Excessive suffering is how saints are made.

Someone who is strong and faithful inspite of the excessive suffering is extremely inspiring to others. The ripple effect is very positive, and the divine reward for the one who suffers is very great.

So you don't believe in tests sent by God? How refreshing. The Baha'is love their tests as long as they are not the ones so targeted.

I do believe in tests from God. But, it's not how I understand suffering.

 

[Trailblazer]

False. Your analogy was that natives wouldn't understand what a plane is and I explained that planes are real, unlike gods, and that planes can be shown to exist to people who had no awareness of them existing, unlike theists and their many different gods.

That is not my analogy, that is your analogy, so you just made a straw man.
In my analogy, the natives say they have no idea what the investigators are talking about since they have no idea what an airplane is. How would the natives know if there was any evidence for that airplane crash if they don’t even know what an airplane is or what it looks like?

The fact that, unlike gods, and planes can be shown to exist to people who had no awareness of them existing, is not part of my argument, so it is a red herring.

You don't get other believers agreeing with your claims and belief. They might stay quiet, or they might agree in a general sense, but they don;t agree with you.

AGAIN, that is a red herring since this thread is not about what theists disagree with my claims or beliefs. It is about the fact that atheists say "that's not evidence" every time I present evidence for God.

You want to make atheists the bad guy,

I never made atheists out to be the bad guy. You must have a persecution complex.
If anything, it is certain atheists trying to make theists out to be bad guys, by the derogatory things they say about us.

but the fact is that Baha'i can't convince Christians, or Muslims, or Hindus. or other fringe believers that your view of God is true , and thus their view of their god must be wrong be default. Other theists reject your specific claims about God just as atheists do.

Baha'is are not trying to convince anyone that that our view of God is true, or that anyone else's view of God is false.
Other theists reject our Baha'i views about God mainly because they already have their own view about God that they believe in and adhere to.

I suspect your motive is trying to whip up a common enemy so other believers will join you in the condemnation.

What condemnation? I have never condemned any atheists. You must have a persecution complex. You will never find any evidence of me persecuting atheists. All I do is present my own arguments, defend my beliefs, and point out the logical fallacies that atheists commit.

If you actually had evidence you would feel motivated to write these absurd posts.

I have already posted the evidence dozens of times. That is not what this thread is about, so that is a red herring.

These are the gods of diverse theists. Atheists don't see any evidentiary basis to believe is any of the many gods talked about by believers. That is not the problem for atheists, it's the problem for believers who make their religious claims in an open forum.

That is a red herring because this thread is not about gods of diverse theists.
It is no problem for believers that atheists don't believe is any of the many gods talked about by believers.

You asking atheists to describe what God or evidence for God looks like is as absurd as asking you about some imaginary character you've never heard of before.

It is not absurd at all. If a God existed how would you know? What would the evidence look like? You say what I have is not evidence for God so how would be able to recognize evidence if there was any?

These are the gods of believers, you all think these gods exist in one way or another, it's on you to demonstrate any of these many gods exist outside of human imagination.

I was not asking you about the gods of believers.

You can't. You are frustrated that you aren't trusted, and you lash out against those who show the best skill at thinking.

Nothing could be funnier that that. There is no evidence or me lashing out at any atheists.
You and your associate are doing all the lashing out. I am just sitting in the bleachers minding my own business.

They disagree because there are many, many religious traditions and people settle into the tradition they like for their reasons.

Isn't that what I said above?

It isn't that they believe due to an intellectual process.

Some do, some don't. Some believers believed becaue thye were raised in a religion, but other believers studied religions in adulthood and came to believe due to an intellectual process.

The fact is there are many gods, many disagreements, and a lack of fact to help resolve the confusion.

If anyone wants to resolve the confusion, all they have to is read the Baha'i Writings, since they explain why there is so much confusion.

And why are religious traditions so inconsistent and confused? Use facts in your answer, not your belief.

Religions are inconsistent because they were revealed in different ages of history to different peoples. Given that, it would not be expected that they would be the same, since God reveals what is necessary in the age in which a messenger is sent. Why would God send a new messenger in every age if everything the messenger revealed was exactly the same? The core spiritual teachings are the same in every age, but other things are different.

 

[Trailblazer]

Excessive suffering is how saints are made.

Someone who is strong and faithful inspite of the excessive suffering is extremely inspiring to others. The ripple effect is very positive, and the divine reward for the one who suffers is very great.

Thanks, that was very helpful. I see the 'potential' for one who is strong and faithful in spite of excessive suffering to be extremely inspiring to others, if they associate with others and share their experiences, but if they are always suffering and that causes them to isolate then they are no good to anyone. That is the situation I find myself in. I can share on this forum but not out in the world. Happy people don't want to be around sad people and when I am sad I don't want to be around happy people because it only makes me sadder.

I sure hope there is a divine reward. That sounds like something the Baha'is would say.

I do believe in tests from God. But, it's not how I understand suffering.

If you don't think that suffering is a test from God, how do you view tests from God?
If suffering is not a test from God, then how do you understand suffering? Do you think that suffering exists for no reason?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By using a method that is known to produce the highest number of correct answers and eliminates almost all incorrect answers. That gives me the highest possible confidence to be right.

So what is the actual evidence that you are right? Not that you say so as you do above, but actual evidence.
So far you are in effect saying you think/feel you are right. I would like evidence of that.

 

[Heyo]

So what is the actual evidence that you are right? Not that you say so as you do above, but actual evidence.
So far you are in effect saying you think/feel you are right. I would like evidence of that.

For the real world, the most successful method of explaining and predicting is the scientific method. I thought we do agree on that. I could cite a bunch of experts who would agree, is it that what you want?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For the real world, the most successful method of explaining and predicting is the scientific method. I thought we do agree on that. I could cite a bunch of experts who would agree, is it that what you want?

No, for the real world science is a limited method that can't be used on this:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

That it is the best method is without evidence as per your rule of evidence and real world.
That we can agree, is not a part of the real world and doesn't mean we agree on something with evidence, just because we agree.