Evidence for God

[Heyo]

That it is the best method is without evidence as per your rule of evidence and real world.

We don't have evidence for explanations and successful predictions by science? You lost me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We don't have evidence for explanations and successful predictions by science? You lost me.

No, we don't have evidence that they are the best.

 

[danieldemol]

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.

I know I 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?

I fail to see the problem here.

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.

Death is not necessary to a suffering free world though as I see it.
Death could simply be an option in a suffering free world that doesn't come as a consequence of not eating etc, but rather as an option that people choose for themselves when they get sufficiently bored of existing assuming boredom is even possible in a suffering free world.

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.

I disagree, there is still much to experience. Fire could still provide pleasant warmth and light without burning people, ice cream could provide pleasant coolness without people catching a cold etc.

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

As explained above it wouldn't be for me. Perhaps your God should give people a choice of a suffering free realm and this one, and let those who think suffering is so grand be the ones to be tortured in this merciless realm.

In my opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We don't have evidence for explanations and successful predictions by science? You lost me.

No, we don't have evidence that they are the best.

 

[danieldemol]

All-powerful does not mean can do anything, it means has all power.

According to the Gospel of Mathew it does;
'with God all things are possible.”'
Source: Matthew 19:26 NIV

God is not subject to human-devised logic.

But according to the Bible it is saying not all things are possible with God that is the human devised logic.

So why should I elevate your anti-logic to the logic of an All-powerful God?

 

[PearlSeeker]

It is NOT a circular argument.
It's simple .. G-d does not WANT to be known or understood by the insincere.

So you have to believe the evidence to believe the evidence?

What is insincere about examining things first?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you have to believe the evidence to believe the evidence?

What is insincere about examining things first?

Or:
You can't understand God if you are insincere. I understand this about God, therefore I am not insincere.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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).

OK. What exactly shows he was really a Messenger? Can you name a few concrete things for each category (character, works, words)?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So you have to believe the evidence to believe the evidence?

No .. it is NOT all about the evidence of messengers and scripture..
..it is about having an open-mind in the first place.

What is insincere about examining things first?

Nothing .. the insincerity is something deep in our souls.

 

[PearlSeeker]

No .. it is NOT all about the evidence of messengers and scripture..
..it is about having an open-mind in the first place.

OK. Then it should have been written:
"Unless you believe in the possibility of..."

 

[dybmh]

Death could simply be an option in a suffering free world that doesn't come as a consequence of not eating etc, but rather as an option that people choose for themselves when they get sufficiently bored of existing assuming boredom is even possible in a suffering free world.

Bingo! Death, a material world with challenges, opportunity for great success and great failure. Great suffering, and great reward... would be an option for people ( or maybe souls? ) that they could choose when they get sufficiently bored in a suffering free world ( heaven? ).

Perhaps your God should give people a choice of a suffering free realm and this one

Perhaps that is precisely what has happened. The suffering free realm is heaven? And the souls get bored there? Many people speculate that heaven would be a boring place, and they would prefer to be in hell with the sinners who are much more fun than the saints.

 

[F1fan]

That is not my analogy, that is your analogy, so you just made a straw man.

What? There is a post of you explaining how you thought up the analogy of natives not knowing what airplanes are.

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?

All I did was explain how your analogy wasn't accurate, as your intent was that atheists are like the natives who are ignorant of some reality. Except planes are known to exist, gods are not, and that is how your analogy fails.

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.

False, it is an oversight on your part, and yet another error by claiming another random and inappicable fallacy. You don;t like being questioned, but too bad, this is debate, your thinking gets critiqued, and you are shown to be in error many times.

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.

It's 100% relevant that in a thread about evidence for God that there is adisagreement about what God is. Again, you have your own rules that deviate from the norm, and you can't dictate how others think and contribute. You know full well that your belief about "evidence for God" is contentious, and you should have thought ahead about the responses this thread would invite.

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.

More of your switch-a-roo. Atheists are often the target for questions by believers, and we are named. It is a natural reflex since atheists are considered a sort of threat. I remember talking to one of my Catholic cousins some years ago and she asked me what religion I was. Being Christmas I didn't want to create controvercy and admit to being an atheist I said I was Buddhist. And she said "Well, at least you believe in something." The meaning I took from this was that not having some sort of ideological belief means a sort of meaninglessness and emptiness, which is far from true. There is a habit of belief that many theists don't realize they use and rely on, and anything that threatens their "operating software" is frightening. We humans seek agreement and support, and any threat processes in the limbic system, and causes any number of reactions. You react in error-riddled posts, denying flaws and referring to fallacies that don't apply. And you refuse to learn.

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.

You Baha'i behave as if you are trying to sell timeshares. You are always dismissing the beliefs of other believers by offering your alternative interYou Baha'i behave as if you are trying to sell timesahres. But you are correct in that it seems you are unsuccesful.

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.

It might be a learned strategy by Baha'is. You all have a subtle arrogance. It isn't overt, it is covert, and we see your condemnation in how you reject any "truth" that isn't Baha'i driven. Now you are tricky in that you also appreciate other believers when they show some agreement, but this seems part of your Jeckl and Hyde personality.

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.

Sorry, "evidence for God" opens the door to the many versions of God, and the lack of evidence for any of the many different gods. If you actually had evidence you could rebut these problems, but instead you complain that it is brought up.

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?

Believers don't know and can't answer these either. But they do have their adopted dogmas, just like you do, and they don't align. You think God doesn't interact with ordinary people, but other religious views claim God does. That's a pretty big disagreement, and it affects your beliefs/claims.

I was not asking you about the gods of believers.

I don't need your permission to introduce facts that challenge what you believe.

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.

This is persecution complex, claiming that your debate opponents are lashing out. You post in an open area of the forum, so it is your responsibility to cope with the critiques your posts invite. RF has fairly strict rules, and if we are crossing a line we would hear about it from the staff. We don't.

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.

In my experience over the many decades converts have several reasons for change. My Catholic aunt was presbytarian and converted because her husband was Catholic. They wanted shared religious views, and they raised all 9 kids as Catholic. There are people who were raised religious and rejected all religious belief, according to their testimonies. They did so for various reasons. My reason was that I observed moral and ideological inconsistecies in my family, and the answers my grandmother told me about Christianity did not make sense, even to an 8 year old. I have read testimonies of theists who changed their affiliation because of abuse in church. Some were seeking a truth that felt good. My sister looked at many religious traditions and ended up in a Urantia group in Boulder, CO. It was a fringe religion that was very select, and they had an exclusive and secretive "truth". They didn't have absolutist rules like Baha'i, so I wouldn't consider them a cult.

As we know religion is a wide open landscape and a believer can find whatever they are looking for. You found Baha'i, but is it truth? Is your version of God accurate? The evidence is not convincing. The advantage of faith is that the believer can fill in the gaps where evidence is missing.

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.

I have read a lot of what you all have possted and it actually had the opposite effect. The writing are not well written, offer little guidance, and could have been created by any clever conman. And look at other people on RF, anyone else blown away by the texts? No. If you see a Ford pinto in a parking lot most everyone is going to see a piece of junk. Do you know who won't? It would be any member of the Ford pinto fan club. Meaning is in the eye of beholder. Two weeks ago tomorrow I met one of my music heroes and talked to him for about 5 minutes, Ronny Moorings of Clan of Xymox. Unbelievable, as I have been a fan since the 80's and he's still an active artist. Apart from @Ella S. does anyone know who he is, or care? Doubtful. Eye of the beholder.

Religions are inconsistent because they were revealed in different ages of history to different peoples.

Odd that the same God has different revelations that are inconsistent. This sounds like an excuse, not an explanation.

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.

Why? Why would a God reveal conflicting things? Unless the God was evolving to, it makes no sense. And if God does evolvee, then there's no truth, as all that is subject to change.

There is a reason why there are basic moral inpulses in human development. These morals formed many hundreds of thousands of years ago, well before Gods came along. These moral evolved with the impulse to survive, and this was the basis for tribalism as language and meaning evolved. Your explanation is superficial religious lore, and all religions have their story. I defer to what the facts reveal about how humans and human behavior evolved and developed over time. This also explains how religions formed as a utility for early humans. Today the need for religion is not as imprtant as political frameworks have taken the place of religious authority.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Many people speculate that heaven would be a boring place, and they would prefer to be in hell with the sinners who are much more fun than the saints.

G-d forgive us .. I wouldn't want to be in hell for even a few seconds!

I understand that the suffering in this life, although very serious, is not as severe as in the life herefter..
..for those who are unfortunate, of course .. and nobody knows who they will be .. we can only imagine.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why? Why would a God reveal conflicting things?

G-d does NOT "reveal conflicting things" .. only a few changes to "the law" over millennia.

 

[F1fan]

G-d does NOT "reveal conflicting things" .. only a few changes to "the law" over millennia.

Old Testament. New Testament. Quran. Baha'i texts. Mormon Bible. Urantia Book.

Seems there's a lot of inconsistencies and changes going on. Does a "one true God" really need numerous volumes?

And let's not ignore all the different interpretations, why so many? Because the texts are not clear. Even the Gospels lack consistency, so that's a mess. Fortunately scholars of history can explain all this, and it isn't anything true believers want to hear.

Hey, aren't you the guy who claimed a God exists but couldn't back that up? Thought so.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Seems there's a lot of inconsistencies and changes going on..

Not if you believe the Qur'an..

The "law" in Islam is not that different to Jewish law..

I know we have Trinitarian [Roman] Christianity, that claims the law is abrogated altogether,
bu that is another issue.

 

[F1fan]

Not if you believe the Qur'an..

There you go, a conditional argument that is only valid with certain assumptions, which your fellow Abrahamics reject. That's bad luck.

Do you think God is mad at them?

The "law" in Islam is not that different to Jewish law..

Then why was there any need to a New Testament? Or a Quran?

I know we have Trinitarian [Roman] Christianity, that claims the law is abrogated altogether,
bu that is another issue.

The Abrahamic religions are a buffet of belief.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you think God is mad at them?

Everything we say and do is judged by its intention .. we reap what we sow.

Then why was there any need to a New Testament? Or a Quran?

The NT was written and chosen by men .. it contains much truth.
Jesus came to correct the misinterpretations of the Jews in his time.
..but G-d raised him to heaven, as his mission was "untenable" i.e. condemned by Sanhedrin etc.

The Qur'an was revealed to correct mistaken Christian belief and oppression.
i.e. against Arians, so-called heretics etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

According to the Gospel of Mathew it does;
'with God all things are possible.”'
Source: Matthew 19:26 NIV

That is meant figuratively, not literally. Much of the Bible is figurative, such as what Jesus says about how faith can move mountains. Faith cannot actually move mountains.

But according to the Bible it is saying not all things are possible with God that is the human devised logic.

So why should I elevate your anti-logic to the logic of an All-powerful God?

God has His own kind of logic, and it is not the same as human-devised logic. Humans cannot know how God thinks and reasons since the mind of God is unknowable.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK. What exactly shows he was really a Messenger? Can you name a few concrete things for each category (character, works, words)?

Nothing shows it in the sense of proving it as a fact. We can only ever prove it to ourselves and then we know it is true.

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

His Works -- This is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on 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.

His Words -- What He wrote can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh